It's not just PR: public relations in society [Second edition] 9781118554005, 1118554000

Table of contents :
Does society need public relations? --
Ethical implications of public relations --
Who practices public relations? --
Public relations influences society --
Shifting the view of public relations.

Citation preview

PUBLIC RELATIONS EDITION IN SOCIETY SECOND

“This is an engaging introduction to PR. I like its quick overviews of key authors, ideas, and debates, its easy style, but, most of all, that it makes the reader think.” Magda Pieczka, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh Whether one sees it as unwelcome, underappreciated, or unnoticed, public relations has an important influence on modern society. In the second edition of their awardwinning book, W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay provide a broad and thorough look at the field of public relations in the world today and assess its impact on society’s values, knowledge, and perceptions. The authors show how public relations affects society – both positively and negatively – and use a range of global, contemporary examples from multinational corporations through to the non-profit sector to prove their point. The authors have thoroughly revised and updated the book with discussion of new issues, including the search within the profession for a definition of PR; the role and limitations of social media; the emergence of issues management; how private politics is shaping corporate behavior; and the rise of global activism and the complications of working in a global world. The authors also provide a nuanced and balanced discussion of ethical concerns for professionals in the field that doesn’t rely on oversimplification of the issues. Well organized and clearly written by two leading scholars, this is a must-read for students and professionals in strategic communication. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay are Professors in the Nicholson School of Communication at the University of Central Florida. They are co-authors of Managing Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley Blackwell, 2011) and PR Strategy and Application (Wiley Blackwell, 2009), and co-editors of The Handbook of Crisis Communication (Wiley Blackwell, 2010). ISBN 978-1-118-55400-5

It’s Not Just PR PUBLIC RELATIONS IN SOCIETY SECOND EDITION

“Concise and thought-provoking examination about ‘what counts’ as public relations and the field’s impact on society; an excellent discussion primer about the issues facing the profession today and in the foreseeable future.” Michael J. Palenchar, University of Tennessee

COOMBS AND HOLLADAY

It’s Not Just

W. TIMOTHY COOMBS AND SHERRY J. HOLLADAY

It’s Not Just

PUBLIC RELATIONS SECOND IN SOCIETY EDITION

It’s Not Just PR

For Megan, Molly, Ben, Martha, Matthew, and Brandon who are the future.

About the Authors

W. Timothy Coombs is Professor in the Nicholson School of Communi­ cation at the University of Central Florida. His books include the awardwinning Ongoing Crisis Communication (2007) and Code Red in the Boardroom (2006). With Sherry J. Holladay, he is co-author of Managing Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley Blackwell, 2011) and PR Strategy and Application (Wiley Blackwell, 2009) and co-editor of The Handbook of Crisis Communi­ cation (Wiley Blackwell, 2010). He has worked with consulting firms in the U.S. and Europe on ways to improve crisis communication efforts for their clients. Sherry J. Holladay is Professor in the Nicholson School of Communi­ cation at the University of Central Florida. She teaches courses in public relations and corporate communication and her research interests include corporate social responsibility, crisis communication, reputation manage­ ment, activism, and stakeholder relations. Her work appears in the Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, Management Communi­ cation Quarterly, Journal of Communication Management, and International Journal of Strategic Communication.

It’s Not Just PR Public Relations in Society Second Edition

W. Timothy Coombs Sherry J. Holladay

This second edition first published 2014 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Edition history: Blackwell Publishing Ltd (1e, 2007) Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data is available for this book. 9781118554005 (paperback) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image © noolwlee / Shutterstock Cover design by Simon Levy Set in 11/13.5pt Dante by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2014

Contents

Acknowledgmentsvi

Introduction to the Second Edition 1 Does Society Need Public Relations? 2 Ethical Implications of Public Relations 3 Who Practices Public Relations? 4 Public Relations Influences Society 5 Shifting the View of Public Relations

1 4 36 60 90 123

References141 Index159

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Elizabeth Swayze and Wiley Blackwell for their support of this book over the years. The book was a bit of a risk given its topic and format but it seems to have worked for all involved, including its readers. We also would like to thank Allison Kostka and Julia Kirk for their patience and help with the revisions, and to thank those reviewers who provided feedback to the revision plan. It takes a team to publish a book, and we are happy to be part of such a great team.

Introduction to the Second Edition

When we had the opportunity to write the first edition of this book, our task of developing a title was challenging due to the book’s unconven­ tional approach and topic coverage. But the title, It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, seemed to capture our ideas quite well. The title was designed to reflect the frustration of many academics and practitioners who feel the term “public relations” is trivialized, misunderstood, and misused. Its colloquial use tends to be tainted with negative connotations as critics lament the substitution of “public relations” for facts, substance, or the “real story.” We welcome our opportunity to broaden readers’ understanding of public relations by offering a perspective designed to “complicate” public relations by addressing corporate uses and limitations of a corporate-­ centric view of public relations but also presenting alternative views and analyses to expand our thinking about “what counts” as public relations. Public relations activities continue to be equated with distortion, manipulation, and stonewalling, and depicted in negative ways. The pub­ lic’s dependence on the media, coupled with the media’s misuse of the term, translates into a lack of understanding of the practice. Unfortunately, there are far too many incidents where corporations have used public rela­ tions in unethical ways to pursue economic self-interests at the expense of the public interest, thereby reinforcing its tainted image. In spite of reports It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

of activist actions that positively impact on society, such as those of Greenpeace, Labour Behind the Label, UK Uncut, and PETA, the public is unlikely to identify these as examples of public relations. Negative con­ notations of public relations may lead people to wonder if society would be better off without public relations. Consistent with the vision of the first edition, the second edition of It’s Not Just PR invites readers to develop a more complex and complete understanding of the practice of public relations. Societal developments, including the increasing effects of globalization and communication tech­ nologies on business and activist practices, as well as events that spotlight both ethical and unethical uses of public relations, are well represented in this new edition. New extended examples that illustrate the use and grow­ ing importance of social media as a communication tool are included. This second edition of It’s Not Just PR should help readers understand why society benefits from the practice of public relations. The new e­ dition expands our examination of the role of power in public relations and the use of public relations by non-corporate entities. At the time the first ­edition was written, the concern with power along with critical and post­ modern approaches to public relations were underdeveloped, especially within the United States. We are proud to have helped introduce readers to these perspectives and are gratified with the positive responses we receive to our presentation of these ideas. In many ways we were well ahead of the curve in exploring these ideas, which is not always the most comfortable position for publishers. We hope that the increasing interest in power and activism, along with greater acceptance of more “radical” ideas in the published academic literature, confirms the value of our vision that guided the development of the first edition. This edition examines both the microlevel and macrolevel (societal, global) processes and outcomes of the practice of public relations. The microlevel examines what defines and constitutes public relations. We focus on the relationship between organizations and their stakeholders, people who are affected by and can affect the organizations. The issue of power is central to our exploration of the relationship dynamic. People often think of corporations, especially multinational corporations, as very powerful compared to average citizens. Sources of power for stake­ holders and organizations are discussed with an eye to demonstrating stakeholders’ potential for influence on corporations and society. As sug­ gested by stakeholder theory, stakeholders can develop power resources 2

Introduction

to participate in the marketplace of ideas. However, in most cases the power advantage lies with the corporation. The interdependence between organizations and stakeholders is central to our appreciation of power dynamics and ethical practices in the web of relationships. The macrolevel focuses on how public relations can impact society by influencing laws, behaviors, and values. A macrolevel examination exposes limitations of a purely corporate-centric approach to public relations. We address how the practice of public relations extends well beyond corpora­ tions and national borders and must be considered within the global con­ text. Global public relations as a form of transnational activism and public diplomacy has been growing. Its expansion and effectiveness has been aided by the Internet. Case studies illuminate how activists, including PVOs, use the Internet and public relations practices to influence corpo­ rate and governmental practices around the world. We are not so naive as to believe that public relations is not used to pursue or to obscure courses of action that harm stakeholders and society. Public relations is not all-powerful, exclusively corporate, or always harm­ ful to stakeholders and society. Nor is it only used by activists and nonprofits to benefit stakeholders and society. The reality is that public relations is a complex mix of all these factors and more. Our goal is to complicate your thinking about public relations by peering behind the misuses of the term to examine its role in society. In the end, we hope this book demonstrates how public relations does have a place in and can be beneficial to society.

3

1 Does Society Need Public Relations?

Conceptualizations of what constitutes public relations cast a wide net and demonstrate a lack of consistency. And when something is labeled by the media as a “public relations” action, it seems to be with a negative, disparaging tone (e.g., “mere public relations,” “PR spin,” “PR hype,” “PR rhetoric,” or “a public relations stunt”). As described in the media, virtu­ ally anything that a corporation or its representatives does may be labeled as “public relations” and treated with suspicion. Activities as diverse as attempts to explain a negative financial report, launch a new product, encourage employees to volunteer in the community, and donate money to a charity, have all been identified as “public relations.” What, then, is not public relations? Critics of public relations tend to focus attention on what they call public relations efforts involved in defending the most obvious and egregious violations of the public trust: cover-ups (such as Enron, Tyco, and HealthSouth), CEO/CFO scandals, the spokesperson who deceives the public in order to defend the actions of the organization, and illegal dumping of toxic chemicals. Attempts to minimize or conceal these scandalous actions often are cast as “PR ploys” designed to deflect the negative impacts of questionable corporate actions i­ncluding suspicious financial reports, management misbehavior, dubious environmental

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

records, or human rights violations. Public relations becomes equated with stonewalling. Stonewalling is the attempt to hide information or delay its release. The public relations practitioner becomes a barrier to the truth, not the bringer of truth. Scandals attract attention. Good deeds and the mundane are less likely to generate media exposure. What go unrecognized are the more com­ monplace and typical PR efforts that characterize the daily existence of organizations (e.g., employee communication, community relations, etc.). Examples include announcements about promotions, recognition of awards won by an organization, or efforts to support local charities or community groups. These more accurately characterize the PR efforts of most organizations. Very few PR practitioners are ever in the position of managing major scandals like those generated by News Corporation, Lance Armstrong, and Olympus. Public relations is the subject of heavy criticism in a number of cultures. Upon learning of these criticisms, peo­ ple are often left to ponder if society needs public relations. Without it, would society be better or worse off ? Both professionals and academics have tried to defend the practice. Often the defense attributes to public relations very lofty pursuits, which seem rather unrealistic. By reviewing the good and bad of public relations we can better appreciate its place in society. The first half of the chapter examines the negative effects of public relations. We start by reviewing media portrayals. Most people learn about the practice of public relations through media coverage of the field and use of the term. Hence, the media help to construct people’s percep­ tions. Public relations has some individual vocal critics as well. We exam­ ine the main critics and the reasons for their disdain. As a corollary, some of the popular press books on public relations are surveyed. Public rela­ tions can be its own worst enemy by emphasizing the aspects most despised by its critics. The second half of the chapter considers the utility of public rela­ tions in a democratic society. Practitioner and academic defenses of public relations are presented. The chapter ends by offering our concep­ tualization of public relations. We provide a definition of public ­relations that highlights the role of communication, relationship ­management, and mutual influence between organizations and stakeholders. This ­provides the basis for understanding where public r­ elations fits into the needs of society. 5

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Media Use and the Term “PR” In late 2012, Internet reports began to appear that Instagram, an applica­ tion for sharing digital images, intended to sell any photos flowing through the application to advertisers. In other words, Instagram could sell any of your pictures that you posted through Instagram without your consent or compensation. The CEO of Instagram, Keven Systrom, quickly began blogging and backtracking on the idea as people began canceling or threatening to cancel their accounts. One media outlet characterized the CEO’s response as “more spin than anything else” (Adhikari 2012). In December of 2012, the Armed Forces of the Philippines released a state­ ment saying the organization would celebrate National Human Rights Consciousness Week with a variety of events designed to show their com­ mitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A news story, critical of the Armed Forces, said the statement “is pure and simple PR spin” (Legaspi 2012, para. 10). These examples illustrate how the media often report on public relations as actions that are style with no substance or even a type of deception. Although we frequently hear people refer to public relations, the practice of public relations is not well understood. The media may be at least in part to blame for the public’s lack of understanding because they tend to use the term “public relations” inaccurately and to focus on some types of PR practice while ignoring others. It is important to con­ sider seriously these portrayals of the uses of public relations and its professionals because they shape people’s perceptions of what PR is, when it might be used, and what PR professionals do. The unfortunate part is that, as is shown by systematic research into media portrayals of public relations, comparing them with the reality, these portrayals are negative (for instance, they equate PR with deception) as well as quite limited. They fail to capture the full range of PR activities and focus mainly on publicity functions. Additionally, the media often label com­ munications and actions as “mere PR” when they really are not what PR professionals would consider public relations. Overall, the media’s use of the term “PR” seems fraught with negative connotations. Empirical research has established the extent of distortion in these portrayals. In 1988, Bishop discovered PR was equated with “publicity” in the newspa­ per coverage in a sample of three newspapers. Keenan (1996) found 6

Does Society Need Public Relations?

nearly half of the references to public relations in major network media coverage reflected the press agency model. Public relations was por­ trayed as nothing more than trying to generate media coverage. Julie Henderson (1998) examined the use of the term “public relations” in 100 popular press media articles. In about 5 percent of them the term PR was used accurately, in ways that would be acceptable to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the professional association. This is problematic because the media are a key source of cues for building reputations when people have little interaction with an entity (Dowling 2002). Most people learn about public relations from the media, not from practitioners. The problem of limited or inaccurate conceptions of public relations is compounded by the negative use of the term itself, as in the Instagram example, and by negative comments about PR. Henderson’s (1998) research found that in only about 7 percent of the articles could the references to PR be considered “positive.” Spicer (1993) found the majority (83 percent) of references to public relations in print media were negative. Scrimger and Richards (2003) explored Canadian journalists’ uses of  metaphors of violent conflict to describe communication between organizations and the public. They examined articles where journalists used the term “public relations battle” or “public relations war.” They found these phrases were invoked even though the reality of the situa­ tion often did not justify the use of inflammatory metaphors. In more than one-half of the cases (55 percent), the terms were used in the first paragraph of the story. In all cases the choice of word was the journal­ ists’; no sources were directly quoted as using either of the two phrases. Thus, their research demonstrates that journalists are prone to frame situations as “violent confrontations” (PR wars or battles) in spite of the fact that the participants do not describe their situations in this way. The media coverage offered a conflict frame even though there could be areas of consensus or agreement between the parties. These types of portrayals could lead the public to misperceive typical PR practices as involving disputes rather than collaboration. Research consistently demonstrates a negative portrayal of public relations and/or use of the term in the media. Media treatment of public relations is an indirect form of criticism. Others have been more direct in their disdain for ­public relations. 7

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Criticisms of Public Relations It is not difficult to locate critiques of the practice of public relations. Critics of public relations are numerous, vocal, and profess allegiance to a variety of disciplines. Critiques can be found in popular press books and in journalistic discussions of public relations. These sources are now reviewed to understand why public relations is considered by some to be a pariah in society.

Popular press attacks on public relations Two popular press books stand out for casting a critical eye on the practice of public relations: PR! A Social History of Spin (1996) and Toxic Sludge is Good for You! (1995). Popular press books, in contrast to more academically oriented books, are aimed at a wide, general audience. It is noteworthy that there is little agreement in them on what constitutes public relations. These popular press books reflect an attitude that seemed particularly prevalent in the 1990s, a time that corresponds to the growth of corporate power. An underlying theme in both books mentioned above is that large corporations are dangerous and that public relations is one of the tenta­ cles on this dangerous octopus. Often popular press books present examples from the history of public relations, select dramatic illustrations to reveal its “unethical nature,” and focus on how contemporary businesses (or governments) use PR to pur­ sue economic objectives at the expense of the public interest. The exam­ ples serve to represent the whole. Synecdoche is used as an argument. If part of what public relations does is bad, then everything public relations does is bad. A part comes to represent the whole. Stuart Ewen’s PR! A Social History of Spin, recounts the development of the practice of public relations by focusing on the commonly recognized pioneers of public relations, Edward Bernays (the “father of public rela­ tions”) and Ivy Lee, and identifies scholars who influenced their thinking (e.g., Walter Lippmann, Gustave Le Bon). He also contextualized various public relations efforts conducted by private industry and government within various historical, economic, social, and corporate periods. Ewen writes that his book focuses on “the social and historical roots that would explain the boundless role of public relations in our world” (1996: 3). Interestingly, Ewen 8

Does Society Need Public Relations?

does not define a key word in his book’s title, “spin” (nor does it appear in the index), perhaps because he assumes the savvy reader will assume that PR and spin are synonymous. (From the title alone, how is the prospective reader supposed to know that this is a book about public relations?) Near the end of the book Ewen writes that public relations is designed to “circumvent critical thinking” and is “rarely intended to inform the population about the intricacies of an issue” (p. 412). He expresses con­ cern over the fact that the techniques used have become increasingly “sophisticated” and “pervasive” (p. 409). A theme of this work is that PR poses a real threat to democracy because it undermines open, public dis­ course. Powerful corporations can hire skilled PR professionals and gain access to the media in order to advocate their policies and points of view; they thus exercise enormous influence, which the average person cannot match. He suggests that the general public is untrained and ill-informed in sophisticated PR methods, and not equipped to assess PR output. In the final section of his book he advocates education in media literacy in order to equip citizens with the analytical tools needed to critically ana­ lyze media messages and images; this education should begin in primary grades. We believe that media literacy is a laudable goal, and people should be discriminating consumers of mediated messages. However, public relations is not the sole force responsible for its need. Ewen’s book reflects a distrust of corporations: people must be wary of the deceptions enacted by corporations. And, as he says, public relations is a perfect mechanism for corporate deception. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton’s Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry, offers a highly critical view of PR which focuses on how it is used to deceive the public. Their goal is to enlighten the masses: “We want the public at large to recognize the skilled propagandists of industry and government who are affecting public opin­ ion and determining public policies, while remaining (they hope) out of public view” (p. 16). They argue that the democratic process has been railroaded through the use of PR techniques. When we think corpora­ tions are doing something that is socially responsible or for the good of the public, we had better look more closely because we are merely being fooled. We should remain suspicious and scrutinize their PR actions to unmask what corporations gain from seemingly noble acts. The book is comprised of interesting, lively-written case studies designed to reveal PR’s role in influencing public opinion and policy. 9

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Examples range from the tobacco industry’s attempt to get women to smoke to phony grassroots movements (astroturf ) to McDonald’s part­ nering with the Environmental Defense Fund, from the Environmental Protection Agency’s involvement in getting communities to accept sludge farming to Hill and Knowlton’s role in securing US citizens’ support for the Persian Gulf War, and to Burson-Marsteller’s part in securing support for NAFTA. Again, PR is presented as an all-powerful tool used by power­ ful interests (corporations, governments) to gain and maintain their power. A recurring criticism in Toxic Sludge is Good for You! is that PR efforts are not easily recognized as such, which makes PR even more insidious and powerful. Advertising (usually) can be recognized as advertising and is commonly understood to represent something that a corporation has paid for and therefore invites critical examination. However, they argue, PR practices commonly include the coopting of journalists who, owing to financial and personnel cuts in their news organizations, have become dependent on PR practitioners for pitches for news stories, use of video news releases, and basic access to information in order to meet deadlines. This results in journalists producing news stories that actually benefit cor­ porations rather than the public (meeting the public’s “need to know”). What we think is “news” (because it appears in a newspaper or other media outlet) is really a pitch for corporate interests. Stauber and Rampton also question the motives of organizations that partner with activist groups in efforts to appear socially responsible. While we might think that working with such groups is a sign of concern for the activists’ issues, the corporations are the ones that actually benefit from the alliances. The authors claim that these alliances are used to benefit corporate interests and prevent the groups from interfering with business operations. By “coopting” the activists, corporations are able to gather information from the groups and “know the enemy.” These alliances are designed to improve the image of the corporation and allow them to con­ tinue business as usual without truly addressing the contentious issues. At times the authors seem ambivalent about the specific techniques and uses of public relations: The PR professionals who work to manage our opinions and emotions are not doing this because they are evil, but because PR is a financially reward­ ing business. From their viewpoint they are simply providing a service to  their paying customers. If PR poses a threat to democratic values, 10

Does Society Need Public Relations? it  is  ­ultimately a manifestation of the deeper contradiction in corporate America – the gap between our dream of a governance “by the people, for the people” and the reality of a society deeply divided by unequal access to wealth and power (p. 203).

In contrast, they later write, Many PR practitioners are engaged in promotional and publicity campaigns for clinics, schools and deserving charities that benefit the public. The tech­ niques of public relations are not all inherently bad. Everyone at some time uses their skills of persuasion to communicate ideas, to sell products, pro­ mote a point of view, or “schmooze” socially. But positive uses of PR do not in any way mitigate the undemocratic power of the multi-billion dollar PR industry to manipulate and propagandize on behalf of wealthy special interests, dominating debate, discussion and decision (p. 205).

However, they do note that Citizens and individual PR practitioners can use ethical public relations techniques to right social wrongs, clean up the environment, promote minority rights, protect working people and make their communities bet­ ter. But we consider it an illusion to imagine that PR is a “neutral” technol­ ogy that can simply be adopted uncritically to achieve socially responsible ends (pp. 205–6).

This last sentence seems to endorse the idea that the practice of PR is inherently corrupt. While Stauber and Rampton admit they do not offer a “magic solution” to the problem posed by PR in society, they hope that their book will help people to “first, learn to recognize the influence of PR in your life; second, seek out alternative sources of information; third, become personally involved in local efforts to directly address important issues at the com­ munity level” (p. 204). A film version of the book is available: Toxic Sludge is Good for You: The  Public Relations Industry Unspun. Here is the creator’s description of the film: While advertising is the visible component of the corporate system, per­ haps even more important and pervasive is its invisible partner, the public 11

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society relations industry. This video illuminates this hidden sphere of our culture and examines the way in which the management of “the public mind” has become central to how our democracy is controlled by political and eco­ nomic elites. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You illustrates how much of what we think of as independent, unbiased news and information has its origins in the boardrooms of the public relations companies.

Using interviews, the film repeats the primary points of the book. There also are interviews with former public relations professionals. These repentant individuals reveal the manipulative secrets of their trade. The focus remains on people’s ignorance of public relations’ role in creating the news through publicity efforts and how willing media representatives can be co-opted. Once more there is an underlying theme of the danger­ ous corporation. When non-corporate entities use public relations it is acceptable, but those corporations are sinister. Stauber and Rampton are active in PR Watch, a quarterly publication from the Center for Media and Democracy that focuses on revealing the “dark side” of public relations. It bills itself as specializing in “blow­ ing the lid off of the multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry” (PR Watch, 2005). The idea is that the newsletter, available free of charge online, reveals to people how public relations manipulates the news. By understanding the process, people will have a better chance of resisting it. But perhaps the most vociferous critics can be found among the ranks of journalists. It is somewhat ironic that many historians trace the roots of modern public relations back to the actions of (former) journalists whose skills were purchased to benefit the interests of corporations. These journalists are described as leaving their positions with newspapers to  assist corporations in appeasing the public. Corporations perceived that journalists possessed the skills needed to promote their organiza­ tions. Journalists’ technical competence in writing news releases was coveted by corporations keen to defend themselves against public criticism of their business practices. Robber barons, the early US industrialists, were among the first to “corrupt” journalists. This was a major shift from the “Public be damned” attitude expressed by railroad tycoon William Vanderbilt and seemingly embraced by his brethren. The practice of “working for” a particular client and representing partisan interests may not sit well with journalists who embrace the journalistic ideal of the 12

Does Society Need Public Relations?

objective crusader and protector of the public trust. The image of the “hired gun” of the corporation contrasts starkly with the idealized image of the unbiased journalist. Criticism of public relations is nothing new. In fact, criticism erupted as soon as modern public relations began to be practiced by corporations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It is noteworthy that the early criticisms sound remarkably similar to current criticisms. There has always been a fear that public relations could be used to hide unwelcome information and might subvert the accurate reporting of news. Of course, critics note it is rather ironic that PR should be so frequently misunderstood and accused of having an “image problem” when one component of their role is to manage information, public opinion, and corporate images. Critics seem to delight in pointing out the inability of PR to manage its own reputation. The implication is that if the “image masters” cannot successfully manage PR’s reputation, the critics must be right! The practice of public relations must be so truly reprehensible that even the “spinmeisters” cannot salvage it. Critics interpret the inability of PR to elevate its reputation as further evidence of its inherent evil. So what, exactly, drives the disparagement of the practice of PR? The following section outlines common themes expressed in critiques of pub­ lic relations. This is followed by a few specific examples of what critical, popular press books have said about public relations practices.

Common themes in critiques of public relations  1. Public relations has kept the public ignorant about what “really” goes on in public relations. The critical books are written and promoted as “exposés” on the PR industry. They promise to reveal behind-the-scenes machinations that will  shock and sicken us and expose PR practitioners as the snake oil ­sales-people of our time. The public is portrayed as “duped” through the maneuvers of PR professionals who use sophisticated techniques to “spin” the truth. The public does not recognize PR efforts as being sponsored by and serving the interests of corporations or governments. The public is unaware of the nature and extent of PR and would be outraged “if only they knew.” PR efforts are assumed to present lies, or at least distortions, of the truth. 13

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Social media has amplified rather than eliminated concerns over public ignorance of public relations practices. Supposedly social media and the Internet create transparency by exposing what organizations and individ­ uals are doing (Gower 2006). In theory, organizations are more trans­ parent because social media and the Internet will reveal if anything is being hidden (Coombs and Holladay 2010). (See Box  1.1: Overview of Transparency for more on the topic.) Social media is fraught with efforts to mask the identity of the communicator and to mislead stakeholders through the use of front groups, astroturfing, sockpuppeting, editing Wikipedia content, and buying social media. Front groups purposefully obscure the source of a message to hide the self-interests of the source. People hearing the message think the front group is neutral rather than knowing the front group has direct stake in the issue (Fitzpatrick and Palenchar 2006). Front groups, such the Center for Consumer Freedom that fronts for restaurants and alcohol, are active online. Social media also is used for astroturfing, efforts to artificially gen­ erate grassroots support for an issue. Various social media channels are used to create the illusion there is strong support or opposition to an issue. SourceWatch actively tries to expose front groups and astroturfing through its website (Coombs and Holladay 2010). Sockpuppeting involves creating a fake identity used to praise or to support an organization or issue (Stone and Richtel 2007). We can term this a front person. The front person can spread messages through blogs, discussions groups, Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media. As with front groups, the front person creates a false sense of support for an organization or issue by hiding the self-interests of the source. Some corporations and their public relations agencies have edited Wikipedia entries beyond correcting factual errors to making the entries more positive for an organization by removing accurate but negative information from the entries. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) from the UK argues that such editing is inappropriate because it lacks transparency (Sebastian 2012). Organizations and indi­ viduals can buy Twitter followers by hiring sponsored tweets – people who will send positive tweets for a price (Van Grove 2009). While the identities are real, the messages are for sale and those reading the tweets may have no idea of this fact. Again, it looks as though there is more support for an organization or issue than really exists. Similarly, some bloggers have been known to create favorable messages for a price. 14

Does Society Need Public Relations?

Box 1.1  Overview of Transparency Transparency has become a corporate buzzword that both public relations practitioners and academics have eagerly embraced (e.g., Karp 2010). The argument, made popular in the book The Naked Corporation, is that organizations cannot hide anything from stake­ holders anymore. “Finally, in a world of instant communications, whistleblowers, inquisitive media, and googling, citizens and com­ munities routinely put firms under the microscope” (Tapscott and Ticoll 2003: xi). They argue new transparency is a function of the Internet. Social media and other Internet communication channels will expose any malfeasance by a corporation. Hence, organiza­ tions avoid questionable behavior because such actions will be dis­ covered and come back to haunt them. In short, the fear generated by Internet-enhanced transparency becomes a form of ethical con­ straint on organizations (Tapscott and Ticoll 2003). Critics note it is naive to put such faith in transparency (Christensen, Thyssen and Morsing 2011; Coombs and Holladay 2010; Jahansoozi 2006). Organizations can still hide some actions. Moreover, when ques­ tionable behavior is revealed the actions may attract little attention and/or move few people to action. If few people learn about the problematic behaviors or choose not to punish the organization for the actions, there is no effect from transparency. Where transparency matters for ethics is the disclosure of sources. It is unethical for public relations practitioners to hide the source of a message. When the source is hidden, those listening to the message cannot properly evaluate the message because they do not understand the biases of the source. Front groups purposely obscure the source to hide the biases of those promoting a position on an issue (Fitzpatrick and Palenchar, 2006). Another ethical breach related to hiding sources is paying or bribing reporters to place stories in the news media. The news media is supposed to be a neutral source. When the news media runs a story that is positive about an organization, the organization can benefit from that favorable news coverage (Meijer 2004). That positive effect might be lost if people knew the organization “bought” the story just as it would buy advertising. Tsetsura and Kruckeberg (2013) have 15

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

examined media bribery on a global scale culminating in their book Transparency, Public Relations and the Mass Media: Combating Media Bribery Worldwide. The book contends that media hide the influence of bribery (media opacity) from audiences to maintain a false sense of unbiased media coverage. Once more lack of trans­ parency is unethical because it obscures the biases held by the true source of a message.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. created a regulation forcing bloggers to reveal when they have received compensation for products they discuss on their blogs (Fulton 2009). While social media may help to expose when organizations or groups are being deceptive, it provides many opportunities to cloak the true identity of those creat­ ing public relations messages.  2. Public relations cannot escape its wicked roots. Early influences on the practice of public relations included writings on psychology and persuasion. The origins of public relations can be traced back to early writings concerning human behavior and the manipulation of public opinion and behavior. Academic work on the nature and role of persuasion portrayed humans as easily malleable, given the use of the right techniques. The problem is that many of these writings seemed to privilege the “elite” (wealthy, well educated), suggesting that the less edu­ cated could and should be influenced by those who knew what was best for them. Within the context of contemporary society, the paternalistic attitudes expressed in many of these works seem exploitive and do not fully acknowledge the plethora of ethical concerns implicated in molding behavior. Critics often point to the seminal influences, noting how this line of thinking corrupted early practitioners, and suggest that the origins con­ tinue to influence current practice. Public relations is tainted by the early ideas that underlie its practice. After all, Joseph Goebbels, master­ mind of Nazi propaganda, claimed to be guided by a book entitled Propaganda, authored by Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations.” 16

Does Society Need Public Relations?

 3. PR is to blame for the inordinate amount of power that corporations (and other groups, governments, lobbying groups, etc.) can exercise. These criticisms focus on how public relations has been used to further the interests of these groups. Public relations efforts have been very suc­ cessful in securing power for them. Corporations and governments are too powerful and public relations tactics are to blame. Corporations have become bullies. PR is what allows organizations to operate as they please, without interference from those who would question their practices. PR has duped the public into accepting this state of affairs. Wendell Potter (2010), former head of corporate communications for the insurance company CIGNA, wrote a scathing indictment of the U.S. public relations industry titled Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans. After 25 years in public relations, Potter had a revelation that he was representing the wrong side and decided to expose how PR had been manipulating people. His emphasis was on the way public rela­ tions was used to prevent healthcare reform in the United States. Potter noted much of public relations is ethical but that “PR tactics are also used to create subversive front groups, discredit legitimate individuals or organizations, spread false information, distort the truth, and instill fear” (Potter 2010: 54). Potter, from his insider position, argued that gen­ erating fear caused people to support positions in healthcare that were against their own interests. Moreover, he posited public relations practi­ tioners are experts in manipulating media coverage to support their interests (Potter 2010). Potter (2010) noted that health insurers, such as CIGNA, poured money into public relations efforts to combat healthcare reform in order to protect profits. He details how health insurers supported health main­ tenance organizations (HMOs) until they became less profitable. Then the industry mounted an effort to convince people HMOs were the rea­ son for rising healthcare costs (an inaccuracy) and urged the move to consumer-driven healthcare that required individuals to pay more of their own healthcare costs. Potter has one chapter that outlines the “playbook” used in healthcare public relations. It includes efforts to fund research that will support your position, create a coalition and front group, hire a major PR firm known for “public ‘deception,’” and create a “duplicitous communications campaign” (Potter 2010: 223–24). Potter’s 17

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

view is that public relations is a practice that will do anything, including concealing identities and distorting the truth, to achieve its objective. David Miller and William Dinan, two sociologists, wrote a book titled A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power. While drawing heavily on material from the UK, Miller and Dinan posit the use of public relations to advance corporate interests is global. “The global PR industry is at the forefront of extending corporate power by engaging in the front-line of the battle between ideas and finding ways to put the interest of the corporation into action” (Miller and Dinan 2008: 124). Miller and Dinan use the term global PR industry in reference to massive, multinational public relations consultancies/agencies such as Weber Shandwick Worldwide and Ruder Finn Group. Their conclusion is that public relations, by blindly advancing corporate interests, are under­ mining democracy. Reflecting neoliberalism, governments are there to respond to the needs of powerful corporations, not other constituencies (Miller and Dinan 2008). Public relations is successful, in part, by being “mysterious.” They note how it is difficult for people outside of public relations to name even one of the major PR consultancies/agencies. Public relations is practiced in obscurity. In fact it is argued that public relations prefers to work in secrecy and often uses deception to hide their interests in order to “pursue their objectives undetected” (Miller and Dinan 2008: 1). The primary strategy of public relations is to manufacture compliance. Public relations practi­ tioners do not need to seek the support of stakeholders, merely to prevent them from opposing corporate interests – create quiescence. They often equate public relations with propaganda. Practitioners are willing to use “degraded and deceptive communications” that ultimately harm society (Miller and Dinan 2008: 2). Public relations is utilized by corporations “to impose business interests on public policy and limit the responsiveness of the political system to the preferences and opinions of the masses” (Miller and Dinan 2008: 1). Overall, public relations is viewed as a practice designed to operate in the shadows, willing to manipulate people, and ultimately is harmful to society. These criticisms seem to ignore how economic conditions and govern­ ment policies have led to the development of corporate power. What they need to attack is the power of corporations to operate in the way that they do, including what laws have made that possible, not the means used to get them to the point where they can exercise that power. 18

Does Society Need Public Relations?

 4. Public relations services are available to or work for those with “deep pockets” and this undermines the democratic process. Corporations use their seemingly unlimited economic resources to fight for their own interests at the expense of the well-being of the general citi­ zenry and democracy itself. As described in no. 3, corporations are seen as too powerful. The once-revered, democratic, public debate of ideas is a myth in a world where public relations can sway public sentiment. This suggests that PR itself is undemocratic: It can be used in undemocratic ways for undemocratic ends. Television portrayals of public relations practitioners also reinforce the view that public relations benefits the rich at the expense of society. In 2012, the ABC network launched the show “Scandal.” The show is based on the life of Judy Smith, a famous Washington D.C. resident con­ sidered a PR maven and a crisis manager (Sneed 2012). Her firm, Smith & Company, lists the following services: crisis management, media rela­ tions, litigation support, public affairs, and training (Practice Areas n.d.). On the show, the firm hides clients from the media and law enforce­ ment, tampers with crime scenes, and uses torture to extract informa­ tion. The television portrayals of these practitioners reinforce the belief that public relations is often used to benefit the elite at the expense of society as a whole. While individuals and groups representing divergent interests can use PR techniques, the financial capabilities of corporations (or governments) far outweigh what is available to the individuals. Access to public relations is undemocratic, and this makes democracy impossible. The idea of the democratic process in today’s society is a sham owing to the power of public relations to work for the interests of corporations.  5. Public relations’ power can be curtailed, and democracy restored, if the public is educated in how to resist public relations. The public needs to be informed and educated about public relations in order to resist its influence. People must be vigilant in separating public relations ploys from the “truth.” The public can protect itself from the influence of public relations and reclaim democracy. When corporations win through PR efforts, the “public interest” loses. 19

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

 6. Public relations is only publicity. The critics of public relations often treat it as publicity; they see the function of PR as influencing media content. That is indeed part of public relations, but often a small part. Television has reinforced this publicity orientation with its “inside looks” into the public relations practice. In 2010, Kim Kardashian, a reality television personality, produced a “documentary” about public rela­ tions titled “The SPINdustry.” The half-hour show featuring Command PR then became an eight-episode reality program called “The Spin Crowd” (Ciarallo 2010). The consistent use of “spin” in the titles reflects the publicity focus of the show. The original episode featured efforts to save a troubled launch party for a client – a publicity generating event. In a later episode the leadership of Command PR, Jonathan Cheban and Simon Huck, must find a way to tastefully promote Carmen Electra’s line of romance toys. In each episode, any public relations work was publicity-related. The background information at the show’s website did not help public relations’ reputation either. Employee Erika is described as knowing nothing about PR and very little about business (Erika 2010). The show’s advice section is about how to plan a party. The “professional” advice for the public relations person planning the event includes: “Don’t ever ask to take a picture with a celebrity while you’re working. It’s the quickest way to end your PR career” and “Smile, no one likes a bad attitude” (Top 2010). We should note that Command PR con­ siders itself in the business of celebrity PR. Still, the show purports to provide insights into public relations while painting a picture of public relations prac­ titioners being unskilled, publicity hungry, and adding little value to society. These six common criticisms of public relations clearly point to the conclusion that not only does society not need public relations, it would be better off without it. Public relations subverts and weakens the news media. Moreover, corporations use public relations to deceive and to harm stakeholders and to subvert public policy debates.

Popular Press Books Describing the Importance of Public Relations Another insight into how public relations represents itself to stakeholders is through popular press books about public relations. The books are writ­ ten by practitioners and represent their articulation of public relations. 20

Does Society Need Public Relations?

We surveyed the bestselling public relations books at the end of 2012 and selected the two top selling books for discussion. David Meerman Scotts wrote The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly to explain the shifting media landscape and its effects upon public relations. As the title indicates, the book treats marketing and public relations as related. When public rela­ tions is joined with marketing it is equated as publicity. Scotts’ rationale for the book reflects public relations as publicity. His position is that prior to the Internet, public relations helped to attract attention by gaining leg­ acy media coverage about an organization. (Legacy media is a term used to describe pre-digital media such as print publications, television, and radio.) Now public relations practitioners can build relationships directly with consumers. Scotts (2011) stated: “The public relations world has changed. PR is no longer just an esoteric discipline where companies make great efforts to communicate exclusively to a handful of reporters who then tell the company’s story, generating a clip for the PR people to show their bosses. Now, great PR includes programs to reach buyers directly” (p. 10). The New Rules claims advertising is losing its value and may be a waste of money for smaller brands and organizations. Scotts still believes adver­ tising and publicity targeting legacy media has value for well-known organizations. His point is that a limited number of organizations have easy access to legacy media. Those without access are best served by developing a highly visible online presence. The Internet is changing the rules of public relations. PR strategies need to exploit exposure on the Internet to deliver an organization’s story to consumers. Moreover, suc­ cess in the online environment can attract legacy media giving added power to the public relations effort (Scotts 2011). Some of Scotts’ (2011) key takeaways for public relations are: PR is not about your boss seeing your company on TV. It’s about your ­buyers seeing your company on the web. Blogs, online video, e-books, news releases, and other forms of online content let organizations communicate directly with buyers in a form they appreciate. On the web, the line between marketing and PR has blurred (Scotts 2011: 12). 21

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Scotts (2012) is endorsing the role of public relations in garnering media attention and selling products. This is a limited treatment of PR that emphasizes the publicity-generating function of the practice. Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, by Ryan Holiday (2012), was another top-selling public relations book in 2012. As the title indicates, the book is an exposé of how public relations works. Holiday reveals a small and very dark aspect of public relations – efforts to shape the content of blogs. Holiday describes his work as an online strategist involving public relations and marketing. Again we have the pairing of public relations and marketing meaning public relations is about publicity. Here is how Holiday described his work: “Someone pays me, I manufacture a story for them, and we trade up the chain – from a  tiny blog to Gawker to a website of a local news network to the Huffington Post to a major newspaper to cable news and back again until the unreal becomes real” (p. 3). Holiday’s strategy is to place stories on a number of small blogs with the intent of spreading the story to bigger blogs and eventually to legacy media. His belief is that local and national journalists turn to blogs for story ideas. Hence, you can influence the content of legacy media by shaping blogs. You start by populating a number of smaller blogs with the same story. Holiday would often pay cash or provide gifts in return for stories on the smaller blogs. The ethics of this practice will be addressed in Chapter 2. Medium-sized blogs see a number of blogs carrying the same story and pick up the story. Local news media utilize the medium blogs as resources and create local stories. The large blogs review local media coverage and pick up the story because it is appearing in a variety of local media outlets. The cable and major news outlets use the large blogs as reference material. When a story appears on a number of large blogs, the major legacy news media outlets may use that same story. Holiday refers to this as building a story through recursion. By manipulat­ ing small blogs with low editorial standards, a story can progress up the media chain. The basic premise is that when the same story appears in a number of outlets, it is viewed as important and other news outlets will cover it – the dynamic behind the phrase “pack journalism” (Crouse 1973). Holiday offers a dark view of publicity because blogs are being manip­ ulated and that influences legacy media coverage. The impact of blogs may be overstated, because research still shows legacy media covers most stories before they appear in blogs (Chalmers 2012). But the potential 22

Does Society Need Public Relations?

corruption of messages through blogs is troubling. Holiday’s website stated: “Bloggers are slaves to money, technology and deadlines. . . I’m a media manipulator. In a world where blogs control and distort the news, my job is to control blogs – as much as any one person can” (Holiday n.d., para. 2–3). In sum, what is noteworthy about these popular press books is their focus on the publicity generating function of PR to the exclusion of other PR functions. They focus on the importance of attracting media atten­ tion, how to work with the media in order to “get your story out there,” and how this media attention will help establish brands. Holiday’s descrip­ tion of public relations makes it seem as if deceptive practices are required to obtain the desired media coverage. They also share a recognition of the limits of advertising in launching new brands, noting that the public is skeptical of traditional advertising and is more easily influenced by “free” media attention. In essence, the pro-public relations books feed into their critics’ concerns. Public relations is still basically publicity. The pro-public relations books are pro-corporation; thus publicity is considered a good thing because it helps clients. There is no real defense of public relations to be found in these books. But public relations is considered useful to society because it does help business.

Positioning Public Relations The practice of public relations is cognizant of and actively combating the notion of public relations as spin. Spin is a form of distortion where the positive aspects of something are highlighted and exaggerated. One defense against spin has been to define public relations and delineate the nature of the practice. In this section we review a variety of efforts to conceptualize public relations as something other than spin. The search covers recent efforts to define public relations and global efforts to con­ ceptualize public relations. Both the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) turned to social media to construct contemporary definitions of public relations. The CPRS project began in 2008. Terry Flynn, Fran Gregory, and Jean Valin content-analyzed existing public relations definitions for themes. A definition was constructed on a 23

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

wiki, public comments were used to edit the definition, and the definition was accepted by CPRS in 2009. Officially, CPRS now defines public rela­ tions as “the strategic management of relationships between an organiza­ tion and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest” (CPRS 2009). PRSA began its search for a modern definition in November of 2011 and ended in March of 2012. First, people submitted possible definitions. A total of 927 definitions were collected and narrowed to three finalists. People were given a month to comment on the three finalists and then a vote was held. The winning definition was: “Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics” (Elliott 2012). Note how both definitions emphasize public relation is strategic communication – it is goal-driven – and concerns relationships with publics. The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Manage­ ment has led the international efforts to explain public relations. In 2010, the Stockholm Accords posited that public relations was essential to orga­ nizational success and outlined various ways public relations contributes to organizations such as “Oversee the development and implementation of  internal and external communications to assure open listening, ­consistency of content and accurate presentation of the organization’s identity” (Stockholm 2010: 4). Also in 2010, the Barcelona Declaration of  Measurement Principles were announced. The Barcelona Principles emphasized that setting goals and measuring results were fundamental to public relations (Overview 2010). In 2012, the Global Alliance announced the Melbourne Mandate. The basic premise was that public relations con­ tributes to society by building and sustaining strong relationships between publics and organizations (Melbourne 2012). Three specific mandates were identified: (1) “define and maintain an organisation’s character and values,” (2) “build a culture of listening and engagement,” and (3) “instill responsi­ ble behaviours by individuals and organisations” (Melbourne 2012: 1). The writings by the Global Alliance reflect the strategic communica­ tion focus found in the “new” Canadian and U.S. definitions. By reviewing how practitioners and researchers are conceptualizing public relations, we can see the counter-argument of spin emerge. Public relations is a com­ plex strategic communication function that has a variety of effects upon the organization’s stakeholders. 24

Does Society Need Public Relations?

There is a continuing debate as to whether public relations is a profes­ sion or simply a practice requiring specialized skill and knowledge. The concern over being a professional is about prestige and status. By sociologi­ cal standards, public relations is not a profession. In most countries, there is no control over who becomes a public relations practitioner. One excep­ tion is Brazil but even that society has ways around the system. While most countries have some form of public relations association, it is common for only a minority of practitioners to belong to the professional organizations and to be subject to its codes of conduct or ethics. The United States is a good example with only a fraction of practitioners belonging to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). People often use the term “profes­ sion” loosely and include public relations p­ ractitioners. Or some argue that ­people in public relations need to act professionally. However, public ­relations is not a profession if we use a strict definition of the term. We see public relations more as a practice. It is a distinct occupation that requires specialized skills and knowledge. However, trying to capture the exact skills and knowledge that comprise public relations practice is difficult because there are so many variations within the practice. On a very macro level, public relations can be divided into three types: busi­ nesses, governments, and non-profits. The practice can be subdivided into in-house and agencies/consultancies. In-house public relations practition­ ers work for the organization itself while agencies/consultants are hired for specific lengths of time to complete particular projects. Agencies/­ consultancies work on a very different model than in-house practitioners. Agencies/consultancies must compete for clients, can work for many dif­ ferent clients, and are organized around projects and teams. In-house practitioners are like other employees and work in a specific department. We can complicate matters by considering the various specialties within public relations. Practitioners might specialize by industry or by public relations function. Specializations by industry include travel and tourism, education, financial, construction, health and medicine, entertainment and sports, and technology. Specialization by function includes corporate social responsibility and sustainability, crisis and risk communication, digital PR, employee engagement, public affairs, litigation, media relations, public health, reputation management, advocacy and issues management, stakeholder mapping and engagement, and change communication. Agencies/consultancies have various units that specialize in various indus­ tries and functions. In-house practitioners are required to cover a range of 25

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

functions such as media relations, reputation management, risk and crisis communication, and digital PR. Given the diversity of activities within public relations, we argue that public relations is a set of practices rather than a defined profession.

Social Media: Revolution or Evolution? “Social media tools are turning the world of public relations upside down. It’s confusing and ever-changing and incredibly useful” (Bergstrom n.d., para. 1). The sentiment of this quotation is echoed daily in various online communication channels and are used to sell webinars and seminars to teach people how they need to harness the power of “fill-in-the-blank” social media. There is an element of truth in these claims but it is also a function of hype designed to sell services (Mendelson 2012). The hype would suggest a revolution is underway in public relations. The hype is based on the massive numbers of people with Facebook accounts and the number of tweets per day. We resist providing exact numbers because those seem to increase each day. A common example is the claim that if Facebook was a country it would be the third largest in the world. While numerically impressive, what does it really mean? Is social media ushering in a revolution or stimulating the evolution of public relations? The reality is that social media is a new communication channel for public relations practitioners that must be integrated into their communi­ cative repertoires. The evolution of public relations reflects the evolution of communication technology. Radio, television, and web pages are all communication channels that forced changes in the public relations prac­ tice. The unique elements of each communication channel are what cause concomitant alterations in public relations. For instance, television adds visual content to messages while web pages allow organizations to post a variety of message types. One unique element of social media is that the channels bypass the gatekeepers found in legacy media (print, radio, and television news) and reach directly to stakeholders such as consumers or investors. There have been direct channels to reach stakeholders since the dawn of public rela­ tions. Now there are more channels available at very low costs compared to earlier direct channels. Another unique element of social media 26

Does Society Need Public Relations?

c­ hannels is the potential for interaction between stakeholders and organi­ zations as they can respond to one another. Public relations practitioners need to decide how best to use this direct access to stakeholders and the interactive nature of the channels. Interestingly, research consistently demonstrates that organizations rarely use the interactive potential of social media channels. For instance, organizations have Facebook pages but there is very little interaction on these Facebook pages with stakehold­ ers. The interactive potential is largely untapped by organizations. Moreover, social media is user-generated content meaning that stake­ holders also use the channels to create messages. Those messages can be comments about an organization, its products, or its services providing a  crucible for forging and a megaphone for amplifying word-of-mouth, still a rather one-way treatment of communication. Hence, a primary value of social media is listening to rather than sending messages. An entire industry has developed around monitoring and evaluating social media messages related to organizations. Examples of companies that track social media messages include trackur, Radian 6, and Lithium. Again, monitoring what stakeholders say and do is not new. However, there are now more options and more data being generated. Practitioners must decide what data to collect and how to use it. Let us return to the massive numbers associated with social media and provide some context. Stakeholders are using social media and smart prac­ titioners utilize communication that stakeholders employ. For instance, journalists use online sources for stories. Hence, organizations should pro­ vide information they would want journalists to find in a variety of online channels such as online newsrooms and blogs. When selecting communi­ cation channels, practitioners have always selected those utilized by their target stakeholders. Once more social media complicates the media chan­ nel selection by adding more channels and reducing the cost of channel mix. Practitioners need to know what each social media offers in terms of the audience it can deliver and what users expect from the channel. We must remember that just because five million people might use a social media channel does not mean five million people will see or react to a message posted on that channel. Of the millions of messages generated in social media each day, very few reach a wide audience and even fewer have an effect upon its viewers. Consider how 71 percent of tweets produce no reaction among followers (Lardinois 2010). The potential to expose people to a message and perhaps influence them exists in social media but is rarely 27

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

achieved (Watts and Peretti, 2007). However, those instances where social media does capture attention and move people to action are impressive. For instance, social media is credited for facilitating the Arab Spring and prompting Gap to restore its old logo (Ellis 2010). The social media have been a significant step in the evolution of the public relations practice. New channels, fewer constraints, and the poten­ tial for interaction have changed the practice. However, the underlying concepts that enable public relations to be a strategic communication effort still exist and guide the integration of social media into the practice. For instance, people are still collecting data about stakeholders (monitor­ ing) to inform their actions and stakeholder utilization of a channel is still a primary determinant in media selection. A revolution means that the old ways and systems are replaced while evolution implies adaptation and changes. Social media’s impact on public relations is much closer to evolu­ tion than to revolution.

Public Relations and the Marketplace of Ideas A tenet of our democratic society is the free exchange of ideas. The ­metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” is often used to describe the process. Everyone has a chance to voice his or her ideas. In fact, the First Amendment to the US Constitution is premised on the right of ­people to be heard, not for someone to speak. The ideas compete in the ­marketplace and the winner is the one accepted by the most people. Public relations is a way for people to be involved in the marketplace of ideas. It allows them to share and understand ideas before making a choice (Heath 2005). People need to have their ideas heard. Public relations is a means of making ideas audible. Just as all defendants have the right to an attorney, all people have a right to have someone help them be heard. We realize that law is often held in low public esteem but it is an essential part of our society. Public relations can be a communication mechanism for binding society together through the facilitation of the marketplace of ideas, and so be valuable and essential to society. As with the law, public relations can be twisted and misused. However, that does not diminish its overall ­contribution to society. 28

Does Society Need Public Relations?

One argument against PR practices is that they reflect unequal power relationships among senders and receivers, between PR practitioners and “the public”; it is through PR, it is said, that powerful, wealthy, corpora­ tions present their interests and impose their will on the unsuspecting public. The notion of power will therefore be a recurring theme through­ out this book.

Public Relations Literacy The discussion of derogatory colloquial uses of the term “public relations” and popular press criticisms of the practice indicate that many regard pub­ lic relations with contempt. While we acknowledge that criticisms of PR practices are justified when those practices are employed to conceal the truth from stakeholders, we believe condemning an entire practice is unwarranted. As we have shown, the practice often is misunderstood. However, other professional practices also are not well understood. For instance, how many people who are not practicing the law, financial invest­ ing, or auto mechanics really understand these professions and their prac­ tices? Close relatives of public relations include journalism and advertising, both of which are shrouded by ethical concerns. Research demonstrates that perceptions of those practices have become more negative as well. Richard Edelman’s speech at the World Public Relations Forum in Melbourne, 2012, noted the negative views of the practice. Edelman (2012) cited an Adobe study that found public relations executives were among the lowest regarded and a Swedish study that discovered 80 percent of news coverage about public relations was negative (Edelman 2012). Although we might attribute these negative perceptions to generalized cynicism, that step seems extreme. The growth of public journalism or civic journalism has more laypersons enacting journalistic practices and perhaps developing an increasing awareness of the challenges of “objective reporting.” However, concerns and criticisms surrounding journalism, advertising, and other media production practices themselves often are addressed through educational programs on media literacy that emphasize issues per­ taining to critical thinking about media, such as motives for creating vari­ ous types of media content, systems of media production, creation of various forms of media, and media use. For example, in some U.S. states 29

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

and Canada media literacy has been integrated into the curriculum such that children and adolescents receive training in media literacy along with oral and written communication skills. The Center for Media Literacy (www.medialit.org) defines media literacy as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms” (para. 1). It “builds an understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-expression necessary for citizens of a democracy” (para. 2). Coombs and Holladay (2010) advocate the development of public rela­ tions literacy to enhance people’s understanding of public relations, their ability to create PR messages to serve strategic goals, and the critical eval­ uation of the practice. Public relations literacy can be viewed as a subset of media literacy. It involves identifying when public relations is used as well as how citizens and organizations may use public relations to pursue strategic ends. It includes understanding how public relations can impact individuals and society, including its potential to contribute to democratic processes. Finally, it also includes the ability to differentiate between ethi­ cal and unethical uses of public relations to exercise influence. Education in public relations literacy may be needed to aid understanding and critical thinking about public relations and to empower citizens to use public rela­ tions to further causes and issues of interest to them. The digital age has made it possible for more people and organizations to gain access to others and to try to wield influence. The ubiquity of digi­ tal media means that everyone with Internet access has the potential to create and consume public relations messages. Although access can increase genuine opportunities for citizen involvement with favored causes, access also can be used for more unethical or deceptive purposes. The potential for abuses of PR practices is abundant via the Internet. Education in public relations literacy can help media consumers discern more transparent uses of public relations from more deceptive uses. For example, the U.S.-based Center for Media and Democracy’s (CMD) web­ site called PRWatch (www.prwatch.org) presents exposés of potentially deceptive public relations campaigns, including the identification of front groups that are funded by special interests but masquerade as grass-roots movements. The CMD site also includes SourceWatch (www.source­ watch.org/index.php/SourceWatch), described as a site for citizens and journalists who want to learn about corporations, industries, and people that try to influence public opinion and public policy. Sites like these can contribute more informally than school-based educational programs to 30

Does Society Need Public Relations?

the development of public relations literacy and may be especially impor­ tant to adults who have not benefited from educational programs in media literacy. In addition, websites such as these discuss PR campaigns that are contributing to current public debates about important social issues. Public understanding of the basis for these debates may promote more informed decision making as well as increased activism among groups who understand their interests are not being represented.

Re-focusing Public Relations As this chapter suggests, public relations has no single, accepted definition for the field. But what has come to dominate recent definitions is the idea of mutually beneficial relationships. This reflects an emphasis on the out­ come of PR activity, and an often idealistic one at that. In this book we propose a definition of public relations that is rooted in public relations’ fundamental terrain and that acknowledges that public relations is con­ ducted for some actor. Organizations (profit, nonprofit, and governmen­ tal) are the primary actors utilizing public relations. Hence, we shall start constructing public relations’ terrain on the organization. Organizations exist within and because of a complex web of mutually influential relation­ ships with stakeholders. In the classical sense, stakeholders are any group that can affect or be affected by the actions of an organization (Freeman 1984; Bryson 2004). The stake is the connection between the group or individual and the organization. Stakes can be tangible (e.g., financial) or intangible (e.g., support) (Heath 1997). Stakeholders can reside inside or outside of an organization (Ulmer et al. 2005). Typical stakeholders include employees, shareholders, customers, government entities, suppliers, communities, news media, and activists (Agle et al. 1999). Publics are “identifiable groups, either inside or outside the organization, whose opinion on issues can affect the success of the organization” (Heath and Coombs 2006: 9). Publics are collectives that form in response to some issue or problematic situation (Grunig and Hunt 1984; Vasquez and Taylor 2001). Publics have an issueoriented stake in an organization. While overlapping, “stakeholder” tends to be the broader of the two terms. Hence, we favor the use of that term over “publics.” Moreover, the stakeholder perspective better represents the often conflicting demands that various groups place on an organization 31

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

(Bryson 2004; Ulmer et al. 2005). The notion of multiple, conflicting groups is a very realistic representation of the milieu for public relations. Freeman (1984) developed stakeholder management as a means to facili­ tate strategic management in reaction to what he viewed as an increasingly turbulent environment – an environment characterized by greater change than in the past. Strategic management is about achieving organizational objectives and the movement from planning to action. Strategic stakeholder management concerns understanding stakeholders, scanning the environ­ ment, and guiding the way stakeholders and organizations interact with one another – their transactions. A stakeholder was defined earlier in this section but here is Freeman’s (1984) original definition: “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objec­ tives” (p. 46). Freeman argued that the “affected by” is a unique and impor­ tant element of stakeholder management. It is easy to identify and to appreciate those who can affect organizations. What is often overlooked are the groups affected by the organization. Those who are affected by an organization may take action against the organization in the future due to the organization’s impact on their lives. Freeman (1984) noted, “to be respon­ sive (and effective in the long run) you must deal with those groups that you can effect” (p. 46). The point is that organizations must anticipate long-term consequences of their actions to be more effective at strategic management. Understanding the groups an organization can affect allows management to understand and to prepare more effectively for future changes. Stakeholder management is about managing the relationship between stakeholders and the organization. Management considers a wide array of stakeholder interests when making decisions and tries to balance the interests of stakeholders through transactions designed to achieve organi­ zational objectives. While all stakeholders should be considered, their interests may be contradictory. As a result, there are times when managers must prioritize stakeholders and focus on the most important ones. Which stakeholders are the most important can change over time and vary by the situation (Freeman 1984). Subsequent interpretations of stakeholder management have refined ways for organizations to analyze stakeholders and to prioritize their importance in a given situation (e.g., Bryson 2004; Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997). It should be noted that Freeman (1984) did consider public relations an important contributor to stakeholder management. Stakeholder manage­ ment only works when management understands multiple stakeholders 32

Does Society Need Public Relations?

and takes their concerns into consideration when formulating strategy and actions. A weakness is that management often forgets to consider emerging stakeholders and issues that could affect an organization. The focus is on stakeholders that already have a “tangible effect on the organization” (Freeman 1984: 221). Public relations practitioners should have a clear under­ standing of a number of stakeholders given their boundary spanning role in an organization. Through environmental scanning, public relations people can help management to anticipate new issues and new stakeholders that might emerge from the environment. Public relations practitioners utilize “issue management” to identity and to track concerns and stakeholders that can “affect the strategic direction of the corporation” (Freeman 1984: 221). It is public relations that can provide insight into those affected by the organiza­ tion and to anticipate the development of new stakeholders. The turbulence of the organization’s environment necessitates continuous monitoring to identify developing concerns. Freeman’s (1984) view of public relations is consistent with current conceptualizations of public relations as relationship management and strategic communication. Stakes can be premised on material and social capital. Material capital includes money, equipment, supplies, and products. Material resources include customers buying products, stakeholders investing money, corpo­ rations paying taxes, and employees earning wages. Social capital can be defined as the “resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (Lin 1999: 35). Social capital is built through social networks or with those whom people know. Organizations and stakeholders form a type of social network. The con­ nections with others rely on a degree of trust and a norm of reciprocity between the parties. One party can draw upon the other for assistance, which might be in the form of information, contacts, or influence. Social capital is a function of social networks and the benefits derived from those networks. These connections should build trust and serve to facilitate cooperation and coordination between members of the network (Putnam 2000; Saxton and Benson 2005). In one way, social capital is a reservoir of good will to be accessed when needed. Customers making positive wordof-mouth comments, employees praising the organization, and communi­ ties supporting re-zoning efforts are examples of social capital. Organizations should recognize the value of the stakeholders. Research has established that a failure to attend to the needs of stakeholders is a “flaw” that often leads to poor performance (Bryson 2004). On occasion, 33

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

stakeholders can influence organizational performance. The interconnec­ tion between organizations and stakeholders is therefore the basis for mutual influence. Influence is a matter of power or the ability to get an actor to do something it might not otherwise do. While each side can influence the relationship and also resist the influence, they do not, ­typically, do so to an equal extent. In most cases the organization has greater influence and the ability to resist; but the stakeholder does have some influence and some ability to resist. Resistance is a matter of having options for acting other than those prescribed for them. In order to perform well, an organization needs a sense of order to prevail in its network of stakeholders. Because conflict among them can impede performance, a goal of public relations is to maintain harmony. But one way stakeholders can exercise power is to disrupt the harmony by some form of agitation. Any actor in the network can use PR activity to spread unrest. Conflict is a mechanism stakeholders have to remind organizations of their influence and to consider their needs. The squeaky wheel does get the oil. Indeed, organizations often benefit from this con­ flict by gaining insight into stakeholder needs, and this provides an impe­ tus for beneficial change. Moreover, there may be times when organizations want to agitate stakeholders and get them involved in some external cause. Efforts to defeat or to support legislative proposals might involve organizations inciting their stakeholders to action. Taking all this into account, we define public relations (as mentioned in the Introduction) as the management of mutually influential relationships within a web of relation­ ships comprised of stakeholders and organizations. Public relations, like power, is enacted and managed through communication. We include “management” in our definition because we assume that relationships do not merely emerge by themselves. Just as interpersonal relationships require deliberate attention and communication skills to be maintained, intensified, or dissolved, relationships between organizations and stake­ holders require management. The inclusion of “web of relationships” in this definition acknowledges there are multiple relationships that must be considered, including those that exist among various stakeholders and other organizations. The ties that bind are complex indeed. Our definition of public relations is not revolutionary because it is con­ sistent with prevailing views in the field. Hazleton and Kennan (2000) have used Bourdieu’s (1985) work to link social capital to public relations. According to Bourdieu, social capital is “the aggregate of the actual or 34

Does Society Need Public Relations?

potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 248). Organizations need to have stores of social capital and the ability to access those resources. Public relations can aid an organ­ ization in developing and accessing social capital. In turn, social capital reduces transaction costs for the organization. It reduces the financial costs of “doing business” (Hazleton and Kennan 2000). Grunig and Repper (1992) also noted that public relations can improve organizational effec­ tiveness by building relationships with stakeholders and thereby facilitat­ ing the achievement of the organization’s mission. Grunig and Hon (1999) identified control mutuality as one of the key dimensions for evaluating relationships in public relations. Control mutual­ ity means that both the organization and the stakeholder have some amount of control over the relationship. They also observed that power imbalances do occur in the organization-stakeholder relationship. Treating public rela­ tions as managing mutually influential relationships is consistent with cur­ rent thinking in public relations. However, by re-focusing on mutually influential relationships we want to emphasize the role of interlacing stake­ holder relationships and the centrality of power in those relationships.

Conclusion In his book Walden Two, B. F. Skinner paints a picture of a utopian society. This society is built on his principles of operant conditioning. What is interesting is that even in a utopian society, Skinner recognized the need for public relations. Moving from fiction to reality, public relations is an inevitable and essential part of society, much like law. Ideas must be heard and public relations is a valuable megaphone for ideas. We may not like all the ideas we hear and some can abuse the megaphone for despicable ends, but society is poorer if that megaphone does not exist. Public relations is not without its problems. The greatest challenge for public relations is the issue of power. Power is a serious concern that public relations has skated round with the skill of a professional dancer. Chapter 2 addresses the power issue more fully and explores the implications of power for both public relations and society.

35

2 Ethical Implications of Public Relations

At its heart, public relations is public communication. Public communicators always have had special ethical responsibilities and challenges because of the potential they have for abusing their positions (Starck and Kruckeberg 2003). This chapter reviews the ethical concern that public ­communicators have when establishing the lineage of today’s public relations ­professionals. They have a boundary spanning role in that they have to understand the needs of their client (the organization) as well as those of society as a whole. Even if inclined to privilege the interests of society, they are under pressure to favor their client. So the issue of power is examined in relation to the choices they make. In Chapter 1 we discussed common critiques of public relations and focused on how popular press books and media often criticize the practice of public relations. Most criticisms of PR focus on its potential to influ­ ence public opinion, arguing that PR supports particular interests, for whose benefit the truth is often distorted. We noted how the publicity functions of PR tend to be overemphasized in discussions of the profes­ sion. We also discussed how inaccurate media depictions of PR practices may have a deleterious effect on people’s perceptions of the profession. This chapter concentrates on public relations as a form of public communi­ cation. We will explore how public communication is associated with mul­ tiple, special responsibilities to society. These responsibilities stem from It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

the need to practice ethical communication and the concomitant empha­ sis on two-way communication and dialogue in the public arena. Ethical responsibilities also extend to the treatment of clients because PR profes­ sionals are obligated to represent the interests of their clients. The reason for balancing the needs of society and the needs of clients produces a tension that may be difficult to manage. PR professionals may find it chal­ lenging to function as the “conscience of the organization” when the organization is their employer.

What Is Public Communication? The origins of the concern for public communication can be traced back through what is called “the rhetorical tradition.” The rhetorical tradition is associated with public discourse, argument, and the character of the communicators. Early Greek and Roman rhetoricians such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian wrote about the importance of public discourse (public speaking) in the open exchange of ideas and extolled its role in creating a just, democratic society. They were especially concerned with the ethical responsibilities of public communicators. They endorsed the idea that public communicators should use sound reasoning, provide ­evidence, and be held accountable for their statements. They also noted that different message strategies could be used to achieve speakers’ goals. Early rhetoricians were especially sensitive to how the character of the communicator (credibility, goodwill toward others, morality, concern with ethics) figured in public communication. Although they noted that public discourse could be used by unscrupulous characters to pursue evil ends, the writers in the rhetorical tradition placed a premium on the use of ethical communication in public discourse. They saw the public arena as the place where differing ideas could be proposed, supported, and debated by citizens in order to determine which arguments should pre­ vail. They valued public discussions because they believed this process enabled the most just ideas to emerge. Open, ethical public communica­ tion was seen as an integral part of the society’s democratic process. These early scholars were endorsing what we now call the marketplace of ideas. People should hear all views on an issue in order to make informed decisions. 37

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Ethical Responsibilities of PR as a Form of Public Communication Although the early rhetoricians may seem far removed from today’s mod­ ern society, their regard for the power of public communication and the ethical obligations associated with public communication provide a strong legacy for American philosophy as well as offer implications for the prac­ tice of public relations. In theory and practice, we can think of ethics as standards for behavior that influence evaluations of what is right and wrong. Ethics are about values, and personal, organizational, and societal standards (Treadwell and Treadwell 2005). Textbooks on public relations include chapters on the ethical responsibilities of PR professionals and many academic programs require one or more classes in ethics as part of career preparation. In spite of the training in ethics, it is easy to see how PR professionals face many ethical dilemmas in the course of performing their roles as public communicators. Public relations activities are performed within the context of a society whose members may (and should!) critically examine the activities with respect to their credibility, truthfulness, and intent. In the marketplace of ideas, we expect a variety of perspectives to compete for attention and endorsement by the public. We also expect these ideas to withstand care­ ful scrutiny by a skeptical public. The knowledge that any public commu­ nication must be able to endure inspection should motivate PR professionals to consider seriously the ethical implications of their roles as public com­ municators and to exercise care when sending messages to the public. Shannon Bowen, in the “Ethics of public relations,” writes, “The power to influence society means that public relations holds enormous responsibil­ ity to be ethical” (2005a: 294). The potential for public relations practition­ ers to shape public opinion necessarily puts pressure on them to consider, and practice, ethical communication. They should strive to protect the public interest while simultaneously engaging in advocacy. While it is easy to see that ethics are implicated in message dissemina­ tion and influence attempts, we also should consider how ethics are asso­ ciated with listening. PR professionals typically are portrayed as message senders and as engaging in one-way communication. We assume they are hired to place their client’s message “out there” in the public arena. Critiques of public relations often assume this one-way view of com­ munication. But this is only one side of the communication process. 38

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

PR ­professionals must also listen. We should advocate ethical listening as well as speaking. Just as we expect the citizenry in a democratic society to listen to ideas in order to evaluate their merits and make informed deci­ sions, PR professionals are obligated to listen to their stakeholders and consider their concerns. Stakeholders may be the ultimate judges of what constitutes ethical communication by the organization. The public may rightfully expect dialogue – a give and take of communication – with the organization. Dialogue is premised on listening as well as speaking. Listening represents the “two” in two-way communication while “one” is simply sending a message via one-way communication.

Ethical Perspectives Thus far we have discussed ethics in general. However, there are different ethical perspectives grounded in different assumptions about what consti­ tutes moral behavior. The merits of these perspectives can be compared, contrasted, and debated. We present two commonly referenced ethical perspectives and then propose a third perspective that best captures the ethical responsibilities implicated in how we have conceptualized the practice of public relations. Two general perspectives on ethics include teleology and deontology. A teleological approach to ethics focuses on the outcomes of actions as the basis for moral reasoning. A teleological ethical framework judges behav­ ior according to its outcomes, results, or consequences. You might violate the law (behave unethically) because it will result in a positive outcome that you view as morally just. This can lead to the view that the “ends justify the means.” A utilitarian teleological perspective that focuses on the outcomes or consequences of an action should be evaluated in terms of its effects. The preferred action, the ethical choice, is the action that creates positive outcomes for the greatest number of people. In contrast, the foundation for the deontological ethical framework is a system of rights, obligations, and duties. This approach is dependent upon certain obligations between actors (e.g., contractual commitments) or between organizations and actors (e.g., the Equal Employment Oppor­ tunity Commission and workers). Laws, regulations, and codes of ­conduct that prescribe behaviors are used as the standards for determining 39

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

if behaviors are ethical. The underlying assumption is that ethical actions are those that fulfill obligations by adhering to the laws or codes. The codes of ethics for many professional associations can be viewed as reflect­ ing this ethical sensibility. As we will see in a later section, the discussion of the codes of ethics for two professional associations affiliated with pub­ lic relations reflects the deontological ethical framework. A third perspective that is beginning to attract attention in public rela­ tions is the ethic of care. The ethic of care is closely associated with the work of Carol Gilligan, a feminist writer who viewed interdependence as central to ethical behavior (Simola 2003). An ethic of care places the focus  of ethics on “maintaining connections and nurturing the web of relationships” (p. 354). The recognition of the importance of the web of relationships fits well with our view of public relations as managing mutually influential relationships within a web of stakeholder and orga­ nizational relationships. The ethic of care’s focus on interdependence, mutuality, and reciprocity mirrors our perspective on public relations. The work of public relations scholar Derina Holtzhausen and her focus on activism also endorses a focus on “the other” in assessing the ethicality of behavior (Holtzhausen 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002). An ethic of care fights the indifference found in other ethical systems. We have a responsibility to others to work to strengthen our relationships. This is possible through dialogue because it demonstrates a sense of responsibility to others. We cannot choose to ignore a relationship simply because it is not that important to the organization. We must respect ­others and maintain connections (Simola 2003). This is consistent with recent writing on moral competence that stresses doing the “right thing.” A key component of doing what is right is compassion or caring about others. An organization must align its values with its actions; if it says it cares it must show it cares (Lennick and Kiel 2005). However, Holtzhausen (2012) argues that, because organizations stem from managerial values, organizations cannot be moral; only individuals can make their own moral choices that are grounded in the need to take personal responsibil­ ity for actions toward others, especially marginalized others. This means that individuals ultimately bear the responsibility for their behaviors and actions that demonstrate caring for “the other” are the most ethical. Corporate social responsibility offers an excellent illustration of the ethic of care. An organization can choose to address social and environ­ mental concerns because it is compelled to do so by law or because it will 40

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

help the organization achieve other goals. However, it can also choose to ignore social and environmental concerns because it is not mandated to address them or the stakeholder expressing concern has little power to influence the organization. An ethic of care argues that an organization should address social and environmental concerns because it will strengthen relationships with stakeholders by showing respect for their concerns. We run into issues of impugning motives as we try to understand why an organization undertook an action. What we can evaluate are the actions. Are organizations taking actions that are beyond what is required by law and taking those actions before stakeholders have called for the actions? Acting beyond legal requirements and acting before being com­ pelled to do so by stakeholder protests implies an ethic of care. We still can be skeptical that the organization is looking for some eventual gain from improving the relationship with stakeholders. True, organizations do increase social and material capital through relationships with stake­ holders. The benefits are a natural outgrowth of the relationship net­ work, regardless of the motive. Hence, we choose to consider the nature of the action because motives cannot be fully known. If an organization says it values care, reflects that value in its actions, and produces valued outcomes, we will consider it to be morally competent and reflecting the ethic of care.

Professional Associations and Ethics The professional associations to which many PR practitioners belong endorse adherence to ethical standards that demonstrate a concern for the clients they serve. In addition, these ethical standards often acknowledge the potential power of public communication to shape public opinion and therefore refer to the need to serve the “public interest.” Although there is no formal certification process for becoming a practitioner, many pro­ fessionals elect to align themselves with one or more of these professional PR associations. Several of these associations, such as the Global Alliance (GA) for PR and Communication Management, the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), and International Public Relations Association (IPRA) boast international memberships. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the European Public 41

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Relations Confederation (EPRC), Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA), and the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) are members of the Global Alliance but are more regionalized associations. Globalization requires that public relations professionals be aware of expectations for ethical conduct across the globe. Globalization illumi­ nates differences in cultural values as well as the government, legal, and media systems that arise from these values and can affect the practice of public relations. It is important for professionals to be aware of these val­ ues and consult with local professionals to determine what is deemed to be ethical within a particular cultural context. Despite the potential for cultural differences in expectations for behavior, the codes of conduct are strikingly similar across these professional organizations; similar values underlie the ideals of the communication practice. The belief that codes of conduct can and should be developed reflects the deontological ethical perspective’s focus on duties and obligations to ­clients and the public. The ethical codes signify that members of these organizations have a duty to conform to these expectations for ethical behavior. However, there are no negative sanctions for failing to comply with these codes of ethics. This means that practitioners who violate these codes will not be punished by the professional organizations. Nevertheless, violators could be punished by their employers and/or by the “court of public opinion” if unethical behavior is revealed. The point is that the codes of ethical conduct formu­ lated by professionals to represent ideals of the practice share numerous commonalities. Closer examination of principles within these codes is warranted to demonstrate areas of shared concern. We first examine the Global Alliance, an organization that claims an international membership and acknow­ ledges PRSA’s influence on the development of its Guiding Principles. In the Preamble to its “Guiding Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Relations,” Global Alliance (GA) notes PR professionals should be “guided by a higher sense of serving the public as a whole as opposed to specific constituencies on an exclusive basis” and obey applicable laws (Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management Code of Ethics n.d.: 6). The admonition to “obey applicable laws” directs practitioners to be cognizant of the legal contexts in which they operate. The GA’s Code of Professional Standards states “We are committed to  ethical practices, preservation of public trust, and the pursuit of 42

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

c­ommunication excellence with powerful standards of performance, professionalism, and ethical conduct” (p. 4). The code identifies five values that should guide member behaviors: •• Advocacy We will serve our client and employer interests by acting as responsible advocates and by providing a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate. •• Honesty We will adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advanc­ ing the interests of clients and employers. •• Integrity We will conduct our business with integrity and observe the principles and spirit of the Code in such a way that our own personal reputation and that of our employer and the public relations profession in general is protected. •• Expertise We will encourage members to acquire and responsibly use specialized knowledge and experience to build understanding and client/employer credibility. Furthermore we will actively promote and advance the pro­ fession through continued professional development, research, and education. •• Loyalty We will insist that members are faithful to those they represent, while honoring their obligations to serve the interests of society and support the right of free expression. (GA code of ethics: 4)

As previously mentioned, PRSA’s code of ethics (PRSA Member Code of Ethics 2000) influenced the formulation of the Guiding Principles and thus several PRSA values mirror the GA’s values. PRSA’s Member Statement of Professional Values includes six values: •• ADVOCACY We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate. •• HONESTY We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public. 43

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society •• EXPERTISE We acquire and responsibly use specialized knowledge and experience. We advance the profession through continued professional develop­ ment, research, and education. We build mutual understanding, credi­ bility, and relationships among a wide array of institutions and audiences. •• INDEPENDENCE We provide objective counsel to those we represent. We are accounta­ ble for our actions. •• LOYALTY We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest. •• FAIRNESS We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public. We respect all opinions and support the right of free expression.

In addition to the six values, the PRSA code of ethics contains a section titled “PRSA Member Code of Professional Values.” Under the “Advocacy” value, the code notes: “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent” (p. 2) and “We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate” (p. 2). The “Honesty” value notes the concern with “accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public” (p. 2). The “Loyalty” value asserts “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest” (p. 2). The PRSA “Code provisions” outlines core principles that should guide the goals and practices of PR. The core principle concerning the “Free flow of information” is: “Protecting and advancing the free flow of infor­ mation is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society” (p. 2). Another core principle, one guiding the “Disclosure of information,” is: “Open com­ munication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society” (p. 4). A core principle for “Enhancing the profession” is: “Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the pro­ fession” (p. 6). This includes the goal of building respect and credibility for the profession. Overall, the picture that emerges from these codes is consistent with the recognition of ethical responsibilities that derive from the power of 44

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

public communication to influence society as a whole. Truthful, timely information that serves the public interest and facilitates informed ­decision making is emphasized. However, the codes clearly direct profes­ sionals to serve the needs of clients. GA’s and PRSA’s codes consistently emphasize the importance of being faithful to “those we represent.” The implication is that ethical communication entails representing client interests. After all, the profession could not exist without clients or employing organizations. So professionals should listen to their clients/ organizations to determine how to meet their needs and formulate information-sharing and advocacy campaigns to pursue their interests. But where is the parallel mandate for listening to stakeholders? The importance of ethical listening is implied but not explicitly stated. The  code offers no specific guidelines for ethical listening or inter­ action with stakeholders. The PR professional must walk a fine line in meeting the needs of both the client and the public interest. When is the line crossed between serv­ ing the public and serving the client? Undoubtedly, professionals recog­ nize some tension between the two. Although specific methods for resolving dilemmas involving possible conflicts between the public inter­ est and client needs are not provided, the codes seem to suggest providing accurate information on behalf of clients serves the public interest by providing fodder for public debate. But can PR professionals really serve two masters?

The Boundary spanning Role of the PR Professional It is clear that PR professionals may be placed “in the middle” when attempting to balance the needs of clients with the needs of society. PR professionals are in a rather unusual position as boundary spanners. They take on this role when they connect the organization/client with society as a whole. In other words, while PR professionals are members of their organizations, they also have frequent and close contact with the public, which is composed of multiple stakeholder groups. The communications they craft for clients are introduced into the public forum. It is this com­ munication with and to the public that necessitates a close consideration of ethical responsibilities in communication. 45

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

In this role of boundary spanner we see the importance of the c­ oncept of mutually influential relationships in understanding public relations. Basic communication models recognize a distinction between one-way and two-way communication. As we previously discussed, one-way com­ munication reflects the basic “sender to receiver model” (uni-directional model) where the speaker addresses an audience. Two-way communica­ tion implies an interaction between sender and receiver where the roles may switch. The receiver at least provides feedback to the sender about the message. Two-way communication involves both speaking and listen­ ing to stakeholders. The PR professional not only communicates to ­stakeholders, he or she attends to what stakeholders have to say with respect to organizational actions. Mutual influence arises from two-way communication. Public relations theorists have tried to impose a second distinction on forms of two-way communication by drawing an additional contrast between asymmetrical and symmetrical models of two-way communica­ tion. Public relations scholar James Grunig (2001) popularized the distinc­ tion between two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models of  public relations. The asymmetrical model focuses on the persuasive attempts of the organization to influence a stakeholder. The o ­ rganization/ client is trying to change the attitudes or behaviors of the stakeholder. However, because it is two-way communication, listening by the organi­ zation is viewed as a precursor to persuasion. The model assumes that the organization listens in order to persuade. But it also assumes that the organization does not adapt to what it hears from the stakeholder (Grunig and Hunt 1984). The asymmetrical model neglects to consider that the organization can be changed by the information it collects from the stakeholder in the twoway communication. For instance, when McDonald’s collected information about recycling Styrofoam in preparation for a new campaign to enhance its reputation, it discovered that customers could not accept that Styrofoam could be recycled. As a result, McDonald’s scrapped the recycling plans in favor of a plan to replace Styrofoam sandwich containers with paper and cardboard wrappers. This example demonstrates that organizations using a two-way asymmetrical model can be changed by what they hear from stake­ holders. Hence, the conceptualization of the two-way asymmetrical over­ simplifies persuasion and negates the fact that practitioners engaging in persuasion can be changed by the information he or she collects. 46

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

The symmetrical model focuses on the balance between the organi­ zation and the stakeholder. It implies collaboration and cooperation between the organization and stakeholder. A dialogue, the exchange of messages, develops between them. “Symmetry induces a symbiotic rela­ tionship between organization and public; the two are equal partners, interdependently sharing information in order to arrive at mutual under­ standing” (Bowen 2005c: p. 837). Symmetry is not a static concept; rather, it is adjusted over time. There is negotiation between the organization and stakeholder. In symmetrical communication people do try to influ­ ence one another when engaging in conflict resolution and negotiation (Bowen 2005b). But it is misleading to assume that a dialogue in symmetrical commu­ nication will not involve some form of persuasion. That would be like saying that information is purely distinct from persuasion. In reality, infor­ mation is not really neutral. The selection of information, deciding what to present and how to present it (or frame it), can be used to persuade people – to change their attitudes or behaviors. The information we receive or do not receive shapes our view of the world and how we react to it. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a situation where dialogue can be neutral and not favor some interests over others. The important point is that organizations and stakeholders may be partners in two-way commu­ nication but rarely will they be equal in terms of power. We have discussed asymmetrical and symmetrical models to demon­ strate that although the descriptions of the two models may sound good in theory, the distinction between them is not always clear. In two-way asymmetrical communication organizations can change as a result of lis­ tening to stakeholders; someone about to engage in persuasion is often changed by the information he or she collects from stakeholders. Further, in the dialogue in two-way symmetrical communication there can still be attempts to influence, and on the other hand, in some dialogues neither side changes at all. We feel the important point in both models is the will­ ingness to listen. As used here, “listening” doesn’t mean simply hearing what others have to say. It also requires seriously considering or acting upon what stakeholders have to say. Mutual understanding and influence can occur through true dialogue. Merely giving lip-service to listening by “pre­ tending to care” about the concerns of stakeholders is not truly lis­ tening. As we included in our definition of public relations as the 47

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

management of mutually influential relationships, the relationship is mutually influential because both parties affect the cognitions and/or behaviors of the other. In other words, there is some degree of interde­ pendence within the relationships. Critiques of public relations, such as those presented in Chapter 1, often seem to assume a one-way view of communication and influence focusing on how PR professionals communicate with the public. Even the codes of ethics for the two professional organizations seem to emphasize one-way communication. In the one-way view of communication, a sender (the PR professional) is seen as sending a message to receivers (stakeholders, the public) who supply no feedback on their reactions. The communication functions as a monologue. This perspective is reflected in criticisms focusing on the potential power of PR to produce opinion change. In critiques, descriptions of public relations practitioners’ use of  VNRs (video news releases), news releases, and publicity campaigns typically reflect a one-way view of the communication and portray the receivers (the public) as rather passive and gullible. In reality, two-way communication between PR professionals and stakeholders may be more the norm in both theory and practice. Organizations should be interested in the opinions and needs of stake­ holders. Integrated marketing research has documented the shift in marketplace power from distributors to consumers. Consumers have greater power than before, since they are able to access a wider range on  information about products and services, thanks to the Internet. Consumers also can function as information-providers and opinionshapers through social media activities. Corporations, in turn, must respect this power and be sensitive to the needs of consumers (Schultz 2003). In order to supply products and services that are desired by stake­ holders, organizations must pay attention to what they are saying they need and want from the organization. What can this organization offer to consumers? Does the organization supply what it says it will supply? Does it meet expectations? We also must consider the broader context or environment in which the organization operates. Stakeholders may expand their concerns beyond the products and services offered by the organization; they may also be concerned with the way in which the organization operates. What sort of community citizen is it? How does it affect the local as well as the global environment? How does it treat its workforce? Does 48

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

the organization support human rights everywhere it operates? Because an organization operates as a “public citizen” in the public arena, it is open for scrutiny. As a member of the community, the organization can be questioned on its citizenship behaviors. Does it contribute to the “public good”? If it operates globally, to what extent is it a good global citizen? The pressure for what is called corporate social responsibility (CSR) is growing. At its core, CSR is the recognition that organizations have responsibili­ ties to all of their stakeholders. It is no longer enough to meet financial responsibilities. Corporations must be cognizant of, and manage their effects on, social and environmental concerns (Rawlins 2005). CSR pro­ grams attempt to demonstrate what an organization has been doing to meet its social and environmental responsibilities. Chapter 5 will elabo­ rate on the complex dynamics that surround CSR. Organizations are being called upon to justify their existence by demonstrating that they add value to society rather than exist for their own profit-making purposes. The PR professional can alert the organization to these CSR concerns and warn management when stakeholders perceive that the organization is  acting unethically. Chapter 5 will provide additional insight into CSR demands by offering some specific case examples.

Tensions for PR Practitioners From the preceding discussion it is clear that the realities of the business world place practitioners in a quandary. While the professional codes of ethics suggest that practitioners should consider the interests of society as a whole, obligations to clients are mentioned more frequently than obliga­ tions to the public interest. The reality is that the practitioners work for the client. Who pays the practitioners’ salaries? It may be unrealistic to expect PR professionals to disregard “who pays the bills” in favor of the public interest. Consider one of the early statements of public relations ethics, Ivy Lee’s “Declaration of Principles.” The “Declaration” was hailed as a sign of a seismic shift, from ignoring to embracing stakeholders. A  key point was providing accurate information (Wilcox et al. 2000). However, when push came to shove, Ivy Lee sided with clients. During a Congressional investigation, Lee was asked what responsibility he had to 49

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

make sure the information his clients asked him to disseminate was true. His response was “none” (Heath and Coombs 2006). Ultimately, Lee viewed public relations as a delivery system for the client, not as a protec­ tor of the public interest. Another source of tension is that exactly what constitutes “the public interest” may be debatable in a complex society. As we discussed earlier, there are multiple stakeholder groups that comprise that public. Certainly the public interest cannot be monolithic. What if these stakeholder groups pose different ethical standards? Which stakeholder groups should be emphasized? To which groups’ concerns do we devote more attention? To what extent do the concerns of stakeholder groups conflict with one another such that pleasing one will agitate another? Who decides which groups are privileged over others? Shouldn’t those groups that can more directly impact on the organization receive greater attention? The web of stakeholder relationships is complex and interdependent. Supporting that web requires skill. When making decisions, PR practitioners are likely to consider that complex web of relationships as well as issues pertaining to the power of stakeholder groups. The next section explores power and its potential to affect professional decision making with respect to the organization, public opinion, and various stakeholder groups.

Power Relationships Power is a central concept in the analysis of relationships, regardless of whether they are private and interpersonal (e.g., friendships, marital, familial relationships) or public (an organization and its stakeholders or publics). As noted by Leitch and Neilson (2001), “power is a key element in the analysis of social relationships in nearly all other disciplines . . . and in social theory generally” (p. 129). A consideration of power is important to discussions of the practice of public relations. As we have discussed, relationships are characterized by perceptions of interdependence. There is some type of interconnection, some intertwin­ ing of behavior. If there is no interdependence, there is no relationship. When we perceive that another can influence our behavior (regardless of  whether they choose to or not), then that other has power. People or groups have power when they can get another to do something they 50

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

would not otherwise do. The other may act (or not act) because resources could be withheld or provided, actions could be thwarted or supported, or some other valued process or outcome could be affected. In this way power always is implicated in interdependent relationships. We can always ask: Who holds the most power in the relationship? Who could make the other behave in a particular way? Can stakeholders “make” an organiza­ tion operate in a particular way or can an organization “make” stakehold­ ers adapt to its policies and practices? The robber barons of the early twentieth century did not change their ways and embrace public relations until stakeholders were able to lever­ age power and force change. We see that mirrored today in how Walmart largely ignored critics until 2005. The growing influence of critical stake­ holders on Walmart’s reputation and stock prices has resulted in a vari­ ety of changes to employment and environmental policies and practices at Walmart, as well as Walmart engaging in a large-scale investment in public relations (McGinn 2005). Power (or more precisely, perceptions of power) is important because it explains how influence over another can be exercised. In spite of the ubiquity of power, we are wary of it because it may be abused: it may make relationships unequal and inhibit or even dictate behavior. We often are uncomfortable talking about power because of our belief (in the United States, at least) that “all people are created equal,” and inequities may be exposed that we would prefer to gloss over. However, we do in fact recognize the greater power that some people have, either in their own right or deriving from connections with power­ ful others, economic wealth, or attractive personal characteristics, etc. Earlier we noted how the power to affect public opinion saddles practi­ tioners with an ethical responsibility. When PR professionals consider their role as public communicators, they must consider the ethical implica­ tions of their words. They also must consider power: the power they have as organizational representatives to influence public opinion and, on the other hand, the power of the stakeholder groups that comprise the public. Corporations are assumed to have greater power than individuals or other groups because of their ability to gain access to the arenas of public discourse. For example, their economic resources enable them to purchase air time, produce VNRs and printed materials, host web sites, have an active social media presence, and orchestrate public events. These communication options are what enable them to get their ­concerns 51

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

“out there” in the marketplace of ideas. When we consider stakeholder groups, we acknowledge that they also can exercise influence in the pub­ lic domain. We see that some groups will be perceived to have more power than other groups, because of factors we mentioned, such as access to large numbers of like-minded people and economic resources. These powerful and influential groups are more likely to be on the “­corporate radar” and in the public mind than the small, resource-poor groups. So while we think of corporations as being all-powerful we should consider how particular groups might accrue and exercise power and influence, enough to enter the marketplace of ideas, and influence public opinion as well. However, when compared to the corporations, their power is limited. Having power is critical in competing in the ­marketplace of ideas. In contrast, the public sphere is more of an ideal arena that is open to all citizens, whether powerful or not, and where ideas can be discussed and opinions formed; all voices are equal (L’Etang 1996). So here, public relations can be seen as a corrupting force (Bentele 2005). In the marketplace of ideas, however, the elite – the powerful – are ­privileged, and public relations has become an integral part of preserving that power. The stakeholder groups can use their power to influence not just the public realm but also corporate activities. So while power will facilitate access to the public sphere, power also will allow access to other power­ ful groups. Stakeholder groups can challenge corporations, and those challenges, when publicized to generate awareness among the general population, become part of the marketplace of ideas. But that does not mean that all stakeholders are created equal. Some will be more salient to an organization than others. This means that the PR professional is likely to be motivated to attend to the issues raised by some groups more than by others. Organizations may listen to stakeholders not because they feel it is the “right thing to do” but because they believe stakeholders may disrupt their business operations if they don’t. Corporations may listen for largely selfish reasons. For example, by listening, the organization may determine ways to satisfy enough of the stakeholder demands to prevent them from boycotting the organization or developing a negative social media attack against organizational practices. Corporations may agree to cooperate with stakeholders in finding alternative ways of oper­ ating. If the changes are acceptable to the organization and sufficient for appeasing stakeholders, it may be seen as a win-win situation. Also, an 52

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

organization may listen simply in order to determine what is needed for them to be seen as more responsible. The current concern with corpo­ rate social responsibility demonstrates the sensitivity of businesses to criticism leveled at them for operating without regard for the public inter­ est. When an organization helps the community, or groups such as schools and philanthropic associations, by donating money, products, or their employees’ time, they also are helping themselves. Their CSR pro­ file may be enhanced and they may deflect criticism of other aspects of their business operations. Overall, power offers opportunities to access and influence the public domain. Power also influences the way in which corporations and stake­ holder groups engage each other in public debate. Corporate resources generally carry much weight and can easily transfer into the kind of power large organizations need to achieve their purposes. So the advantage is certainly with the organization (L’Etang 1996).

The Power of PR Professionals in the Corporation These discussions of power and ethics may create the impression that PR professionals are among the most powerful individuals within a ­corporation. In reality, that is usually far from the truth. They actually have r­elatively little power within the overall corporate structure. While we may think of them as providing the “voice of the organiza­ tion,” in reality it is more likely that they are simply doing as instructed by their superiors. Although textbooks will describe PR as a “­management function,” PR professionals often lack the significant decision-making power that undergirds management strategies. It is for their technical skills in crafting e­ ffective messages that the PR professionals are valued. Executives within the organization usually make the “big picture” ­decisions; they determine the strategy. Then the PR professionals are called upon to figure out the nuts and bolts of how to enact that strat­ egy. From this angle the PR function doesn’t sound very powerful. So while public relations practitioners may aspire to be a part of the domi­ nant coalition, the group that makes decisions in most corporations, they are usually not included (Grunig 1992; Bronn 2001). Interestingly, Holtzhausen (2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002) notes that PR’s 53

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

s­eparation from the dominant coalition may c­ontribute p­ositively to  the stakeholder engagement process by ­ facilitating trust with stakeholders. Typically, PR roles are actually limited to performing tasks related to message design and dissemination. PR executes the vision and strategy set out by executives. For example, while they do not plan the strategy, practitioners may determine how to say it and where to place these messages. Newsom et al. (2004) note that PR professionals are hired to be advocates for the organization. In reality, they typically aren’t the ones determining exactly what should be advocated. But when manage­ ment’s strategic decisions prove to be disastrous, for example when a management plan is revealed to be problematic, illegal, or “ethically challenged,” PR practitioners are called upon to “clean up the mess.” It may in fact be a mess that they anticipated. Perhaps they had warned management and their protests were not heeded because they were not part of the dominant coalition; they did not have the personal power to significantly alter the strategy. As PR professionals are trying to execute the vision of upper manage­ ment, they may be reminded of textbook descriptions of their role and ethical responsibilities. For example, Treadwell and Treadwell (2005) describe how public relations functions as the “conscience of the organ­ ization” (also see Holtzhausen 2012) and Newsom et al. (2004) suggest it operates as the “conscience of management.” So in spite of the fact that PR professionals typically do not have the power to make signifi­ cant strategic decisions for the organization, they may be seen as responsible for monitoring or for identifying the ethical considerations implicated in the decisions. In serving the needs of their clients, PR pro­ fessionals are expected to accomplish the goals set forth by manage­ ment while being vigilant in adhering to ethical guidelines. If they note possible ethical violations in the recommended strategy, they can iden­ tify those to management. However, they do not really have the author­ ity to change it. They probably do not have have enough importance even to raise their concerns about an ethical problem. If they do voice those concerns about possible ethical violations, will it make a differ­ ence? Or will they be expected to find a way of justifying the breach of ethics? Everything considered, the power of PR professionals within the organization is really quite limited. They may not be able to truly let their conscience be their guide. 54

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

A Postmodern Perspective on PR Viewing public relations from a postmodern perspective has been gaining in popularity, owing to postmodernism’s overall influence across a wide array of disciplines. Postmodernism informs many aspects of our society, from literary movements to esthetics to educational practices to organiza­ tional design (e.g., bureaucracies replaced by more decentralized and flex­ ible organizational structures). Postmodernism is quite complex and a complete explanation is well beyond the scope of this book. However, we can identify at least one important aspect of it that has been influential in thinking about PR functions and holds implications for its practice. Theorists who write about “postmodern PR” have been especially inter­ ested in how demographic and ideological shifts in society alter the PR playing field and how PR should respond to this diversity. Descriptions of contemporary society often note it has grown more diverse along a number of factors, including culture, ethnicity, economics, and class. Along with this diversity has come a greater concern for demo­ cratic practices that recognize and value the different, often conflicting, “voices” that arise from this diversity. Wedded with the recognition of multiple voices comes the realization of the inevitable conflict prompted by these different experiences, beliefs, expectations, and values. Evaluations of what constitutes ethical practices will vary because of these differences in values and beliefs. Such disagreement among groups is to be expected. Groups compete to get their concerns and messages heard in the market­ place of ideas. They will be motivated to become activists in efforts to be heard – and hear others – in the political arena. From a postmodern perspective, “the public good” should be viewed as highly contested terrain. Can there be one public good? How do we privi­ lege the larger interests of society (the assumed “greater good” – ­compared to more micro-organizational interests) when society is composed of diverse groups with different interests, needs, and claims? Writers who embrace a postmodern perspective (see Holtzhausen and Voto 2002 and Holtzhausen 2012) note that PR is accused of acting unethi­ cally, and many incidents support them. Corrupt Enron executives used investor relations messages, a specialty field within public relations, as one mechanism in the scheme to generate personal wealth at the expense of investors. The Bush administration, through Ketchum Public Relations, 55

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

paid “journalist” Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative on his show and to other news outlets. Armstrong never disclosed the arrangements when he was making endorsements for NCLB (Kurtz 2005). Postmodern public relations theorists suggest that we should conceive of PR as being able to perform a broader ethical role within society, working to ensure that disparate voices both outside and inside the organization are heard by the organization. The ethic of care seems consistent with the postmodern perspective because it highlights the need to feel a sense of responsibility to others. These writers contend that in the postmodern practice of public rela­ tions, the PR professional will act as an activist within the organization (Holtzhausen 2000, 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002). They suggest that taking a more activist stance will make public relations more ethical (Holtzhausen 2000, 2012). What exactly would this look like? How would this work? It involves acting as an advocate for marginalized stakeholders as well as for the organization. This view of activism is consistent with the ethic of care. Holtzhausen (2012) suggests this requires PR professionals to function actively as change agents, to act as “a conscience” of the organization, and to give voice to those stakeholders who lack power in their relationships with the organization. The PR professionals will ques­ tion management, which represents the dominant (capitalist) ideology, and represent the interests of external publics, and will not shy away from conflict and dissensus but rather use it to create new ways of thinking and problem solving (Holtzhausen 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002). They will recognize that management and its views are privileged and hegem­ onic and strive to move against that dominance by legitimizing the voices of those representing divergent and marginalized perspectives that coun­ ter managerial views. The professional is more of a crusader or activist in the postmodern practice of PR. The clash of ideas is seen as beneficial to the organization as well as society as a whole. As boundary spanners, PR professionals are uniquely situated to be exposed to the different perspectives of diverse groups and therefore should be well suited to identifying conflicts. The postmodern view sug­ gests PR practitioners should pay greater attention to stakeholders, espe­ cially marginalized “others,” and not only enable those groups to become activists, but they should themselves perform activist roles on their behalf. It is important to monitor what various groups in society are thinking and doing with respect to the organization, its products and services, as well as 56

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

to its competitors. PR practitioners can build good will across various ­segments of society by demonstrating a willingness to listen to different points of view and earnestly represent those to management. They can facilitate a dialogic process in pursuit of social justice. But is this asking too much of PR professionals? Can they perform the dual advocate role and fulfill the expectations of postmodern PR theo­ rists? Can PR significantly and accurately represent these competing stakeholder groups to management? Can these groups really trust PR pro­ fessionals, as representatives of the organization, to voice their concerns? Can PR challenge management (and the concomitant capitalist ideology) to change its practices to accommodate the interests of these groups? Rather than conforming to the norms, values, and codes established by management to serve managerial interests, Holtzhausen (2012) argues that PR professionals should embrace their personal responsibilities and act upon their moral impulse to help “the other.” The idea of recognizing conflict and using it to create new ways of thinking and problem solving seems a desirable goal. But is it realistic? Can PR professionals perform this activist role by challenging the organi­ zation to hear the voices of those marginalized groups? Can they make the organization want to hear and respond to groups that may be per­ ceived to pose little threat to business operations? Can PR professionals be granted the power required to promote these kinds of changes? Or must PR professionals take personal risks to promote these changes? Again, the issue of power surfaces. We have already noted that PR pro­ fessionals generally are not at a significant decision-making level in corpo­ rations; they are not part of the dominant coalition. Being able to make meaningful accomplishments in this vein requires power. Moreover, PR professionals are paid by the organization. Hearing the concerns of a vari­ ety of groups is time-consuming and costly. Is the organization willing to pay professionals to do this? What happens when stakeholder concerns work against what management sees as their primary interests? Won’t the organization be motivated to listen closely only to the most powerful and influential of the stakeholders? Do PR professionals really have enough power to place the concerns of stakeholder groups before management? Might performing this activist role jeopardize their position when the organization is not prepared to listen or act on the stakeholders’ concerns? Practitioners could quickly lose credibility with stakeholders. And the corporation may question their loyalty to the organization. 57

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the powerful do not abuse their power. That is, corporations will allow PR professionals to play a primary role in allowing divergent voices to be heard and representing the voices of those who cannot speak for themselves. PR experts may be able to play a facilitator or instructional role in helping stakeholder groups become activists and understand how they can use PR techniques to their own advantage. Of course, the danger is that this may seem akin to “arming the enemy.” After all, they may use PR resources against the organization and dominant groups wish to maintain their power. But if the goal is two-way symmetrical communication through engagement processes, the poten­ tial for meaningful dialogue is enhanced when the playing field is leveled.

Conclusion Unfortunately, there is no easy way to address the ethical concerns raised in this chapter. There is no magical code of conduct that will solve all ethi­ cal concerns experienced by PR professionals. Anyone who offers the onesize-fits-all ethical solution is viewing the context of public relations too simplistically. From the postmodern perspective, ethics should stem from individual – or situational – decision making by a moral individual rather than be guided by normative or universal decision-­making rules imposed by society. Normative decision making reflects the belief system (or ideol­ ogy) of those in power, benefits the privileged, and reinforces the status quo. We have proposed that the ethics of care best reflects our definition of public relations as managing mutually influential relationships within a web of stakeholder and organizational relationships. This perspective on ethics leads us to value relationships and see them as a way to facilitate mutual understanding. The best advice is that public relations practitioners must listen and utilize two-way communication to be ethical. Two-way communication sets the stage for mutual influence. You cannot be influenced by a group if you never hear it. Learning what other actors expect you to do puts you in a position of being able to discuss those expectations. Chapter 5 explores the role of expectations in more depth. But this is the start of a difficult journey, not a simple conclusion. There are differences in perceptions of what constitutes ethical behavior and social justice. If this is the case, isn’t 58

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

it likely that some group will be displeased with whatever action is taken because, within their worldview, it is not ethical? This dilemma is reflected in adages such as “you can’t please all of the people all of the time” and “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Compromises to please the most number of people may result in no one being completely satisfied with the ethics of an action. The ethics of public relations ultimately lies in the process and the people utilizing that process. Even medicine has physicians who abuse patients for personal gain. Ethics ultimately reside within the individual. People can choose to abuse any public communication method, and public relations is no exception. The ethical outcomes of public relations actions are ­governed in large part by the personal ethics of the practitioner, not the structure of the public relations practice or well-meaning codes.

59

3 Who Practices Public Relations?

Public relations is more than simple publicity. Moreover, public relations operates within the web of relationships that binds organizations and various stakeholders and stakeholders with one another. However, while public relations uses the term “relationships,” typically the focus remains primarily on how organizations and corporations relate to their stakeholders. This “corporate-centric” view of public relations has dominated the way many scholars conceptualize the field. Their atten­ tion has focused on how corporations in particular use public relations to further their business success. How other types of organizations, par­ ticularly activist organizations, use public relations has been neglected, but is generating more interest (e.g., Coombs and Holladay 2012a). The influence of the corporate-centric view is most evident when we consider how existing publications discuss the history of public relations and who practices public relations. This chapter begins with a discussion of corporate-centric histories on public relations. We then discuss how power should be seen as a central factor in organization–stakeholder rela­ tionships. Stakeholder theory will help clarify the complexities of the power dynamic. We then show how activists have exercised power and have used public relations since the early nineteenth century. The public relations activities of today’s activists have been aided by the Internet.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Who Practices Public Relations?

The  corporate-centric view of public relations will thus be shown to neglect the full range of public relations practices.

Corporate-centric Histories of Public Relations The extant histories of public relations take a decidedly corporate-centric view of the practice. Cutlip’s tome The Unseen Power (1994) is an excellent example. Using the “great person format,” Cutlip takes us through the evo­ lution of modern public relations, starting at around 1900. We are led through the pantheon of public relations legends: Ivy Lee, one of the first true public relations practitioners who was famous for his working relation­ ship with John D. Rockefeller; Edward Bernays, the self-proclaimed “father of public relations” who viewed the profession as a science; Arthur Page, who integrated public relations into management decision making at AT&T; John Hill, co-founder of one of the most successful public relations agencies; Carl Byoir, who refined the use of special events in public relations; Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter, who pioneered the use of public relations in the political arena; and Earl Newsom, well known for his work with Ford Motor Company on labor issues. In addition to being public relations lumi­ naries, all of these figures worked in support of large corporate interests. Even though Whitaker and Baxter were primarily political consultants, their work for the American Medical Association (AMA) to defeat President Truman’s national healthcare plan did benefit “corporate America.” Cutlip’s second book, Public Relations History: From the 17th to the 20th Century (1995), does provide a broader view. Oddly, this book is barely onethird the size of Unseen Power. We discover the connection between politics and public relations, starting with the colonization of America through the American Revolution and westward expansion into the growing integra­ tion of public relations into national politics, including the Civil War. It could be argued that the use of public relations to support political efforts is largely corporate public relations. Both focus on the advancement of the status quo and the benefit of large organizations. The last two chapters in Cutlip’s book address issues related to non-profits and the ability of public relations to promote social change. But there are a mere 27 pages out of 284 pages of text devoted to truly non-corporate views of public relations. Most introductory textbooks follow the same corporate history of public relations. Table  3.1 provides a summary of how introductory 61

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Table 3.1  Historical names in introductory textbooks on public relations Name

Category

Stephen Langton Amos Kendall Harriet Beecher Stowe P. T. Barnum George Parker Jay Gould Herbert Small Charles Smith Samuel Insull Theodore Vail E. H. Heinrichs George Westinghouse Thomas Edison Henry Frick Pendleton Dudley J. P. Morgan Cornelius Vanderbilt Andrew Carnegie John D. Rockefeller Upton Sinclair Ida Tarbell Lincoln Steffens George V. S. Michaelis William Smith Ivy Ledbetter Lee James Ellsworth Rex Harlow Edward Bernays George Creel Arthur Page Doris Fleischman Carl Byoir John W. Hill Don Knowlton Earl Newsom Leone Baxter Ralph Nader Paul Garrett

Government Government Activism Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Activism Activism Activism Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Education Business/Agency Government Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency Business/Agency and Government Activism Business/Agency

Note: To appear on the list, the name had to be mentioned in at least two of the six introductory public relations textbooks that were reviewed. The periods of activity of these individuals are arranged in approximate chronological order, ranging, with the exception of Stephen Langton (d. 1228), from the mid-nineteenth to the early twenty-first century.

62

Who Practices Public Relations?

public relations textbooks present the history of public relations. The bulk of the histories is comprised of corporate examples and contain virtually the same mix of names, companies, and events. There is the occasional discussion of the Revolutionary War, westward expansion, and national politics. This chapter is not an attempt to rewrite public relations history. Instead, we seek to illuminate the generally unseen contributions of activ­ ists to the development of public relations. This exploration of activism’s connection to public relations begins with the notion of public relations as a reaction to attacks on business. This is followed by a discussion of power and marginalization in public relations. We then review the contributions of activism to public relations from the 1830s through to the modern-day applications of the Internet.

Antagonistic Views of Corporations and Activists It is worth noting that these “corporate” histories of public relations focus on corporations using public relations to react to events in society. In the early 1900s, the robber barons were reacting to the muckrakers (early investigative journalists) and efforts to regulate business. The Rockefellers and the Gettys, powerful industry leaders, suddenly realized that public opinion did matter and so men such as Lee and Bernays were paid to shape public opinion toward corporate interests. Similarly, the 1960s saw a need to address social issues, such as the consumer and wom­ en’s movements that were beginning to impinge on corporate interests. Part of the historical evolution attributed to the field of public relations is tied to activism. However, the activists were viewed as barriers to over­ come or challenges to meet. Activists helped create the “need” for mod­ ern public relations. If we shift the focus a bit, activism can be seen “as” modern public rela­ tions. In the 1960s activists utilized public relations to attract the attention of the corporate elite, developing and utilizing many of the modern tools of public relations. Granted, not all activist public relations tools can be used by corporations. Corporations rarely protest, though Mitsubishi tried it unsuccessfully during its failed battle over sexual harassment charges in the 1990s. Early public relations giants such as Ivy Lee explained to the 63

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

r­ obber barons the need to work with newspapers, the “new media” of the day. Activists were working with the media, a primitive form of media rela­ tions, and this was helping them win in the court of public opinion. Lee started a media relations effort to have Rockefeller, the owner of Standard Oil, featured in favorable news stories. Sometimes these were a result of Rockefeller’s influence over editors, while others were more “honest” sto­ ries showing the caring Rockefeller giving dimes to children he met. It is not until the mid-1990s that public relations researchers considered activists to be practicing public relations rather than simply posing an obstacle to corporations. This realization was hailed as an epiphany in the field. Strangely, the evidence had been there for nearly a hundred years! The public relations field simply lacked the motivation or frame of refer­ ence for taking the activist’s perspective. This chapter explores reasons for the failure to treat activism as public relations and the need for making the transition from viewing the activist “as obstacle” to viewing the activist “as practitioner.”

Power and Marginalization As noted previously in Chapter 2, public relations research and the prac­ tice have largely ignored the issue of power. Foucault distinguishes between “power” and “power over,” and his distinction is useful for illumi­ nating further the power dynamic in public relations. Power means that the actions of A (an organization) affect the field of possible actions for B (a stakeholder) and vice versa. Basically, power can be taken as the ability to get someone to do something they otherwise would not do. An exam­ ple would be Burger King issuing new guidelines for purchasing meat after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched the Murder King Campaign. Would Burger King executives have executed the policy shift if PETA had not created a “bleeding” website and negative media coverage of Burger King? We venture to guess not. PETA was exer­ cising power; it changed how Burger King behaved. Given that public relations involves mutually influential relation­ ships, power can characterize the connection between organization and stakeholder. In reality, organizations predominantly utilize “power over.” For power over, A (an organization) modifies the field of B (a  stakeholder). The concept of power over recognizes that in the 64

Who Practices Public Relations?

­ utually influential relationship, the organization generally has greater m influence than stakeholders. Excellence Theory dominated public relations thinking in the 1980s and 1990s. It is premised on having a dialogue between the organization and stakeholders. This dialogue helps to identify and resolve problems in the organization–stakeholder relationship (Bowen 2005b). Public relations researchers operating from a critical perspective have questioned the util­ ity of Excellence Theory, including its failure to address the power imbal­ ance between organizations and stakeholders (Rakow 1989; Coombs 1993; L’Etang 1996). Excellence Theory, however, chooses to downplay or dismiss the issue of power and power over. The argument is that activists have just as much, if not more power, than corporations. If this is the case, why be concerned (Grunig 2001)? Organizations and stakeholders will naturally engage in a dialogue. This Excellence Theory conceptualization of the organization– stakeholder relationship still does not address the basic power-related issue of who controls the initiation of a dialogue. We see this as a primary weakness of Excellence Theory. As Mumby (1988) notes, there is power in the ability to control the communication process. Excellence Theory counters that a dialogue solves power problems. As Burrell (1996) warns, dialogue is a weapon of the powerful. This suggests that Excellence Theory offers a naive conceptualization of power in the organization– stakeholder relationship because it does not recognize that organizations have the upper hand when it comes to deciding whether, and under what conditions, to engage in dialogue. As noted by Grunig and White (1992) and Grunig (2001), the asym­ metrical model of public relations suggest that stakeholders’ arguments can force organizations into a dialogue. The point is that public relations can be powerful enough to contest the power over exploited by a corpora­ tion. This is a valid argument and one we will expound on in this chapter. However, not all activists have the skill or resources necessary to generate power. Some argue that activists have power equal to corporations and that activists have greater access to public attention than corporations. In large part, the activist influence is attributed to the news media being enamored with activists and having an anti-corporate bias in news report­ ing. The news media may enjoy the schadenfreude (pleasure in another’s misfortune) in revealing corporate misdeeds and be drawn to unusual and dramatic visual images such as protestors chained to fences or perching in 65

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

trees. But societal structures, such as government policy making and news sources, still favor organizations over activists. Activists must compete with a wide array of events and issues when trying to capture public atten­ tion. This competition occurs largely within the public arena of news cov­ erage (Ocasio 1997), with the Internet gaining in relevance as a public arena as well. Public attention is a scare resource, and in the quest for it, structural features of U.S. society actually favor corporations over activists (Hoffman and Ocasio 2001). To appreciate the power dynamic in the organization–stakeholder relationship more fully, we need to place the relationship in context. By “power dynamic” we mean the ability of stakeholders to muster the resources necessary to influence an organization’s field of possible actions (or behaviors). Organizations never have just one stakeholder relationship at a time; they exist within a complex web or network of stakeholder rela­ tionships. This network includes stakeholders forming relationships with one another as well as with the organization. Figure  3.1 offers a series of  illustrations of the stakeholder networks. The first part of it shows the typical corporate-centric view of public relations. The second demon­ strates how some view the media as central. The third and final part shows a more realistic view of the web that binds stakeholders. Excellence Theory posits that the organization takes every stakeholder into consid­ eration and communicates with each in a two-way symmetrical manner. This must also presuppose unlimited time and resources. The management stakeholder literature takes a more realistic approach. It acknowledges that organizations cannot handle all stakeholders all of the time. Instead, organizations need to prioritize stakeholders regularly and address those at the top of the list. Managers focus the organizational resources where they will do the most good. This means some stakehold­ ers will be marginalized and the organization will choose to ignore them. The organizations will pay greater attention to stakeholders who have a greater capacity to influence their operations. Every stakeholder has power in the form of the threat to remove heror himself from the relationship with the organization. Organizational systems such as marketing and customer relations are designed to keep stakeholders in the relationship. By leaving a mutually influential relation­ ship, the stakeholder eliminates the organization’s ability to exercise power over him or her. Why should an organization care if a stakeholder exits the relationship? The answer is that the organization is in fact harmed 66

Who Practices Public Relations?

Customers

Activists

Community

Corporation Investors

Media

Suppliers

Government

Figure 3.1a  Corporate-centric stakeholder network

Customers

Suppliers

Activists

Media Government

Community

Corporation

Investors

Figure 3.1b  Media-centric stakeholder network

67

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Corporation Investors

Community

Customers

Government

Activists

Suppliers

Media

Figure 3.1c  Realistic stakeholder network

by the departure of a stakeholder, and the degree of harm reflects the power of the stakeholder. Harm can be both material and symbolic. “Material harm” refers to financial loss such as a drop in revenue or stock price, a loss of financial capital. “Symbolic harm” refers to loss of reputa­ tion or social capital. The two types of harm are related: reputations have financial effects on organizations while financial loss can damage reputa­ tions (Fombrun and Van Riel 2004). Let us use customers to illustrate the point. One fewer customer does little material harm. However, a mass boycott of a product or service increases the potential material harm. However, boycotts rarely influence organizations through direct material harm. Boycotts succeed because organizations wish to avoid the reputational damage a boycott creates by its negative publicity. The negative publicity can cause the loss of social capital (symbolic harm) as well as intensify material harm. Numbers and public attention are valuable power resources for stakeholders. Organizations need to believe that a large number of stakeholders will 68

Who Practices Public Relations?

become aware of and be influenced by a boycott or protest before chang­ ing their behaviors. So stakeholders need to be able to build power. Although we have discussed organizations as having power, organiza­ tions do nevertheless depend to a greater or lesser extent on stakeholders. Clearly they depend on stakeholders for support. Customers must buy products or services, stockholders must invest money, and communities must provide favorable operating climates. In addition, organizations rely on stakeholders to refrain from interfering with their business or contest­ ing their reputation. Challenges – or the potential for challenges – to either reputation or operations are problematic and may necessitate a response. Challenges can be traced back to conflicts of interests. If stake­ holders perceive that an organization poses a threat to their interests they may decide to challenge the organization. Stakeholder theory offers an explanation of how stakeholders come to be viewed as powerful and thereby important to management. In their review of the stakeholder literature, Mitchell et al. (1997) propose three dimensions for evaluating the salience of stakeholders: (1) power (the ability to get an actor to do something he or she would not do other­ wise); (2) legitimacy (the perception of actions as appropriate, desirable, or proper within the context of some belief system); and (3) urgency (the extent to which the timeframe is important, e.g. immediate action being called for because of the importance of the claim or the relationships to stakeholders) (Agle et al. 1999; Bryson 2004). Their proposal has been well received in the management literature (e.g., van Riel 2000). Stakeholder salience is a function of the ability to demonstrate these three attributes. High scores translate into a higher prioritization for the stakeholder. In other words, if management perceives activists to demon­ strate these three attributes, management will feel pressure to deal with the stakeholders and their issues. This is further complicated by the fact that the demands of different stakeholder groups are often contradictory or mutually exclusive. The importance of various stakeholders can change depending on the situa­ tion (Newsom et al. 2004). The issues advocated by competing groups must be prioritized according to their threat level as determined by their ability to impact negatively on the organization and their probability of developing momentum. Mitchell et al. use their three factors to prioritize stakeholders and develop seven different categories of stakeholders, which are shown in Table  3.2. The higher the prioritization, the more likely 69

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Table 3.2  Stakeholder categories (Mitchell et al. 1997) Latent stakeholders: possess only one of three salience attributes. Dormant: power only Discretionary: legitimacy only Demanding: urgency only Expectant stakeholders: possess two of the three salience attributes. Dominant: power and legitimacy Dependent: legitimacy and urgency Dangerous: power and urgency Definitive stakeholders: possess all three salience attributes.

organizational management is to address the relationship with the stake­ holder. The highest priority goes to their “definitive” stakeholders because they possess power, legitimacy, and urgency. Activists tend to populate the discretionary and dependent categories. There are, however, a few, elite non-government organizations (NGOs) that  have power based on their years of activity, strong organizational structure, and communication skills. Greenpeace is one such elite NGO. We are working under the assumption that any activist group has a legiti­ mate concern, in other words, that other stakeholders would agree the situation in question is a problem. Discretionary stakeholders have legitimacy but lack power and urgency. There is a legitimate problem but no  rush to address it because little attention is focused on the issue. Organizational management has no pressing need to address their concerns. Discretionary stakeholders can be marginalized. Management often addresses discretionary stakeholders only out of a need for corpo­ rate social responsibility (Mitchell et al. 1997). Dependent stakeholders possess legitimacy and urgency. These stake­ holders depend on others because they lack power. The “others” could be additional stakeholders or members of an organization’s own manage­ ment team. One view in critical public relations is that the public relations person should be that “other” (Holtzhausen 2000, 2012). Still, organiza­ tional management can choose to marginalize dependent stakeholders. In other words, they can rank them a low priority. The “good news” in the Mitchell et al. system is that stakeholder salience is fluid. Power, legiti­ macy, and urgency can change over time, leading to a re-evaluation and re-prioritization of the stakeholder. We echo others in maintaining that public relations is a vital resource in controlling the process. This is 70

Who Practices Public Relations?

i­mportant because activists will be perceived to have greater salience when the attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency are strong (Coombs 2002; Coombs and Holladay 2012b). The salience of a stakeholder has implications for trying to facilitate change. Changes in organizational behaviors can be voluntary or involun­ tary but both are driven by salience. For instance, an organization can willingly implement workplace anti-violence policies or be required to do so by government agencies. Pressure from stakeholders can also lead an organization to change, a pressure stemming from the fear that stake­ holders will leave the relationship. Companies are concerned to be socially responsible largely because so many stakeholders believe in the value of social responsibility. Thus, change can be driven by external factors. However, research in this area strongly suggests that someone or some group in an organization must support a change if it is, first of all, to hap­ pen, and secondly, to endure. As noted earlier, critical public relations theo­ rists posit that public relations practitioners should be the internal advocate for marginalized voices (Holtzhausen 2012). But a PR internal would-be advocate is unlikely to be inspired by marginal stakeholders; their calls are easy to ignore and offer little incentive for change. To be successful, mem­ bers of top management must publicly support the change as well. Involuntary change is a result of policy decisions. Policy decisions take the form of laws or regulations. After decades of public service announce­ ments about seat belt benefit, states simply made it a law that seat belts must be worn. Policy decisions can result from a mix of external pressure and internal champions. Through media coverage, pressure can build on a government agency to take action. The public and media agenda do influ­ ence government policy (Gandy 1982; Kingdon 1984; Manheim 1987). Once a cause appears on the media and public agendas, it becomes well known and supported by a large number of people. There always has been power in numbers when it comes to policy making. For example, the pressure to ban Alar, a chemical designed to improve the appearance of fruit, was an orchestrated effort designed to pressure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the media and public agendas. The news media por­ trayed Alar as harmful and public opinion strongly favored its banning. The EPA eventually banned Alar even though there was little scientific data to support the action. (Chapter 4 explores the Alar case in greater detail.) While media and public agendas can influence the policy agenda, there is no guarantee. A cause can gain media or public attention but never transfer 71

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

to the policy agenda. One factor that can aid a cause is an inside champion. An inside champion is a powerful political actor who fights for the cause inside the policy making machine. The inside champion realizes the issue has value for her or his political career. Research has shown that one key factor for a cause moving from the media and public agendas to the policy agenda was an inside champion (Arnold 1989). Another reason that marginal stake­ holders find it difficult to affect media, public, or policy agendas is that they lack the salience to build agendas that are attractive to inside champions. The challenge for activist groups has always been how to move from the margin to claim the attention of organizational leadership. The movement from marginal to salient involves managing the mutually influential rela­ tionships, and encouraging management to recognize that the stakeholder is gaining influence. Both traditional and non-traditional public relations tac­ tics can be used to attract the public attention necessary to do this. The more people there are who know about the concern, the greater the likelihood of yet more people adding their support (Crable and Vibbert 1985). And the more people, especially high profile people, who support a cause the greater the perceived power of the activist group. This is why modern activists allo­ cate time to training in the media and in Internet use, to better reach and mobilize people (Ryan 1991). We will give examples of activists using public relations in the past and later using the new communication technology as it evolves. This journey will demonstrate that there is a history and tradition in activism that began some time before the modern corporation.

First Reform Era: Abolitionism and Temperance In the 1830s and 1840s, the United States witnessed its first wave of organ­ ized efforts to bring about social reform. These reformers fought to cor­ rect social ills such as slavery (the abolitionists) and the negative social consequences of excessive drinking (the temperance activists). The abolition movement in the United States emerged in the 1830s as an extension of the Second Great Awakening, a religious revivalist move­ ment of the time. Slavery was associated with sin and emancipation was the way of repentance. In 1831, brothers Arthur and Lewis Tappan formed the Anti-Slavery Society in New York. Two years later the society became nationwide. The Anti-Slavery Society sought to reach a wide audience 72

Who Practices Public Relations?

with its message and to develop support for emancipation. The Society used public meetings, petitions, printed leaflets, posters, journals, ser­ mons, and public lectures to reach their target audiences. One of the prominent orators was Sojourner Truth. She was a New York slave who had been freed when the state abolished slavery in 1827. By 1840, the Society had over 2,000 local chapters, 250,000 members, and had pub­ lished over twenty journals (Anti-Slavery Society, 2005). Even literature was used as a communication channel. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was considered an effective persuasive device. The book brought the abolitionist message into the homes of white America and converted many to the cause (“I will be heard,” 2005). That same year, the Tappans lead created a splinter group known as the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. They, and other men in the Anti-Slavery Society, did not approve of the growing role of women  in the  abolitionist movement. Women were now speaking in ­public and ­serving on the Society’s executive board. Among them were the abolition­ ists Amelia Bloomer and Susan B. Anthony, They also strove for women’s suffrage. There was an overlapping of social issues and activists in the 1800s. Today, it is hard to imagine that the abolitionists were very u ­ npopular and faced stiff opposition when they first started speaking on the issue. These brave individuals still carried their persuasive message to others. Eventually a strong political element of abolitionists emerged through lob­ bying and political parties. Abolitionists helped to make emancipation one of President Lincoln’s goals in the Civil War (Anti-Slavery Society 2005). Temperance activists were at first contemporaneous with abolitionists but the movement extended beyond the 1800s to the 1900s. Temperance was much more than a matter of banning the sale of alcohol. Excessive drinking was seen to be linked to many social problems, including domestic abuse, severe health problems, and crime. Because women often bore the brunt of the alcohol-related problems they were among the leaders of temperance efforts. Temperance and women’s rights were intertwined, hence leaders such as Susan B. Anthony were significant figures in both causes. Temperance was not an issue confined to the United States. Ireland, Scotland, England, Norway, and Sweden all experienced extensive temperance efforts. In the United States, temperance activities began as early as 1808 and extended into the early 1900s with the passage of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) in 1919. Among the items on the agenda were government control over alco­ hol and education on alcoholism in schools. Temperance activists were issue 73

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

­ anagers. They used communications strategically in order to shape public m policy decisions. A closer look at their activities will illustrate how these activists were practicing public relations (Coombs and Holladay 2012b). The practice of public relations cannot be separated from the channels of communication. During the heyday of the temperance movement, the  primary channels were public speeches and events, sermons, and minor publications. As with issues management today, activists needed to create public awareness of the problem and support for their solutions to  the problem. Communication is the tool for creating awareness and building support. Modern public relations practitioners often create what historian Daniel Boorstin calls “pseudo-events.” A pseudo-event is designed in part to attract attention. Today it is the legacy and social media whose attention is attracted. In the 1800s the focus was on public ­attention: people coming out to witness an event. Temperance activists would hold large outdoor meetings and parades, picket to stop delivery of alcohol, and engage in civil disobedience to draw attention (Hanson, 2009). The Women’s Christian Temperance Union and Carry A. Nation illustrate the public relations efforts of the temperance activists. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was founded in 1873. Its crusade was born with a pseudo-event in Hillsboro, Ohio. On Christmas Eve of 1873, Mrs. Eliza Thompson, a respected woman in the community, led 70 women from praying on their knees in a local Presbyterian church to the nearby saloons. Singing “Give to the winds thy fears,” the women marched two-abreast into drinking establishments and prayed for the wayward souls. Mrs. Thompson and her followers ­repeated this act throughout the town. If they could not get into an establishment, they prayed in front of it in the snow. Eventually all of the establishments that sold liquor agreed to stop selling alcohol. This became the model for other chapters of the WCTU to follow. Mrs. Thompson’s efforts were very effective at generating publicity and  spreading the word. Early publications in Cincinnati, Chicago, and New  York covered the event. Harper’s Weekly, an influential publication at the time, ran stories and cartoons about the events. The Ohio crusade became a staple part of temperance speeches and was even noted in ­sermons. The available communication channels were being brought to bear on the problem (Crusades 2005). In 1881, Kansas became the first state to outlaw the sale and production of alcohol. The laws in Kansas were unevenly enforced to say the least. 74

Who Practices Public Relations?

Men were still able to drink and the social problems related to alcohol abuse continued in the state. As early as 1855, women in Kansas were smashing bars. But Carry A. Nation knew the public relations value of this action. Carry Nation’s first husband, Charles Gloyd, was an alcoholic. His drinking ruined their marriage and eventually claimed his life. She later married David Nation. After they moved to Medicine Lodge, Kansas, she began her crusade against alcohol. At first she tried legal means. After all, it was illegal to sell alcohol in Kansas. After limited success, Carry Nation heard a voice in a dream that inspired her to smash saloons. She began by throwing rocks and then switched to her well-known hatchet. Carry A. Nation was not a crazed woman listening to voices in her head. Her actions were calculated and designed to build attention and support for the temperance cause. Carry trademarked her name, sold little pewter hatchet pins to cover her fines, traveled widely to lecture on the evils of alcohol, published a newsletter titled “The Smasher’s Mail,” and continued to smash salons with a hatchet. She was known as “the Lady with the Hatchet.” She used her notoriety to spread her cause. Carry Nation’s actions were a calculated attempt to make people aware of the social prob­ lems of alcohol and the need to ban its sale. Today, Carry Nation would be viewed as engaging in guerrilla public relations (Carry A. Nation 2005). Many well-crafted issue management efforts fail. Political scientists note that having powerful allies helps to move an issue forward and to create public policy (Arnold 1989). An important function of these messages that communicate about an issue is coalition building. The temperance activists found allies in the business community. Business leaders wanted to support their cause because hung-over workers were costing them money. Heavy drinking resulted in workers being absent and having accidents. Business leaders viewed temperance as a means of improving productivity. Women saw it as a way to combat social ills and to save money. It was not uncom­ mon for men to drink more than one half of their wages in the 1800s.

Public relations aspect In the 1800s, the term “public relations” did not exist, but that does not mean the activity of public relations did not exist. Stakeholders existed, there was mutual influence, and actors did try to manage the mutually influential relationships. Part of public relations involves using communi­ cation to shape public opinion in order to influence public policies. 75

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Temperance and abolitionist activists were using public relations to create pressure for social change. Activists of this era employed the print media, public speeches (including sermons), and pseudo-events to draw attention to and build support for their cause. The activists in the First Reform Era were strategically using communication in a sustained effort to combat the social evils of alcohol by influencing ­public ­opinion. We need to con­ sider these early activists as practicing public relations.

Second Reform Era: The Muckrakers Accounts vary, but the Progressive Era in the United States ran from about the 1890s until the 1920s. Prohibition and women’s suffrage, two First Reform Era issues, reached maturation during this time. The United States was undergoing a significant social transformation. Industrialization, urbanization, and immigration were altering the basic social fabric of society. The transformation brought crime, poverty, disease, and corrup­ tion as well as changing how people worked and lived. The problems of the transformation led many to demand additional changes. Socialism emerged as one of the voices for change. The socialists wanted to eliminate capitalism and the “disease” it spread, and they found eager converts among the poor and working class. Their radical ideas led to many heated and violent conflicts between capitalists and socialists, mostly in the form of labor strife. Progressives sought to reform the ills of society through the existing society. They were middle- and upper-class citizens, who put their faith in the power of educated individuals who are dedicated to a cause. A variety of non-profit organizations were created to address societal ills. A new breed of investigative journalists arose from the clamor of the Progressive Era: the muckrakers. From 1900 to 1915, the muckrakers were a catalyst for changing American society. Their writings produced such varied reforms as child labor laws, the dissolving of Standard Oil, the conservation of natural resources, and workmen’s compensation laws. Today these varied writ­ ers are collectively known as muckrakers. “Muckraker” is a derogatory term used by their one-time ally President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was driven to reform and election by the concerns raised by muckrakers. However, when muckrakers revealed inappropriate actions 76

Who Practices Public Relations?

by Roosevelt supporters in the Senate, the President changed his tune. In a 1906 speech, Roosevelt said the investigative reporters were like the muckrakers in Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. They only stared down at their muck and could not see the celestial crown overhead. After Roosevelt’s label was applied, the muckrakers experienced a decline in readership and influence, from a peak in 1906 of over 3 million readers (Muckraking 2005). Muckrakers are considered the impetus for modern public relations. The corporate leaders of the day, known as robber barons, hired public relations people such as Ivy Lee to combat the negative publicity and pub­ lic opinion generated by the muckrakers. Muckrakers used the printed word as their means of informing and persuading people about social issues. They used a mix of books, newspapers, and magazines. Upton Sinclair and Ida Tarbell serve to illustrate how muckrakers reached and influenced others with their words. Upton Sinclair was a socialist who wanted to improve U.S. society. In 1904, he was commissioned by the socialist publication Appeal to Reason to write a book about the poor working and living conditions of immigrants who serviced the Chicago meat packing industry. Sinclair lived among the workers for seven weeks to understand their plight. He was appalled by how these people were treated. The result was The Jungle. His writings were serialized in Appeal to Reason in 1905. However, Sinclair wanted to take the plight of these workers to a broader audience. The problem was that no one wanted to publish the book. Six different publishers turned him away. They feared the message of social change Sinclair advocated. Sinclair pressed on and announced in Appeal to Reason that he would pub­ lish the book himself. When Doubleday learned that he had 972 orders, the company agreed to publish The Jungle. It sold over 150,000 copies in the first year. It was eventually published in 17 languages and was a bestseller around the world. The Jungle inspired President Theodore Roosevelt to investigate the meat packing industry. He and other Americans were horrified by the unsani­ tary conditions of the facility and the abuse of its workforce. The Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) and the Meat Inspection Act (1906) were attrib­ uted to Sinclair’s efforts. Sinclair himself was less than excited. His goal was to help the workers and that did not transpire. He lamented aiming for ­people’s hearts but instead hitting their stomachs. Even the two Acts were more style than substance. The names reassured the angry American 77

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

p­ ublic that their meat was safe. Little actually changed in the industry but the Acts created quiescence among consumers (Upton Sinclair 2005). Ida Tarbell did not have the crusading passion of Upton Sinclair but was a leading muckraker nonetheless. Tarbell’s The History of Standard Oil was an exposé of John D. Rockefeller’s unethical and often illegal business prac­ tices. First published as a nineteen-part series in McClure’s magazine, a ­leading muckraking publication, it later became a book that has been rec­ ognized in the top five of the most important works by twentieth-century journalists (People & Events 2000). Prior to muckraking, Tarbell had been a well-known biographer writing books about Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln. The History of Standard Oil was a carefully documented work, based on court records and interviews with both victims of, and workers for, Standard Oil. She even gave an advance copy to Standard Oil management for comment. Rockefeller referred to her as “Tarbarrel.” Tarbell was victori­ ous in the end, since Standard Oil fell victim to trust busting (the breaking up by government of a monopoly). Rockefeller’s oil empire was dismantled. Tarbell had an agenda like other muckrakers. Her father had been in the oil industry in western Pennsylvania and was ruined by one of Rockefeller’s early predatory practices, the South Improvement scheme. Tarbell had a distaste for Rockefeller, and so pitched the idea of an exposé of the oil industry to McClure’s. She described Rockefeller as money-mad, a hypocrite, and a living mummy. Tarbell’s careful investigative journal­ ism reflected a particular point of view (People & Events 2000).

Public relations aspect The muckrakers used the growing print media to reach people. Through their exposés, muckrakers raised awareness of various causes and rallied people to them. Stakeholders moved from quiescence to agitation against large corporations. The power of the mass media as a tool for influencing stakeholders emerged. Sinclair and Tarbell are but two examples of how publicizing an issue can result in government reform and societal changes. Muckrakers used public communication to pursue objectives and influ­ ence relationships. It was by combating them on behalf of corporations that Ivy Lee established his reputation; his efforts were reactions to the muckrakers. The muckrakers were the first to understand the utility of 78

Who Practices Public Relations?

the mass media. These “original” public relations practitioners of the first half of the twentieth century encouraged corporations to become involved in influencing stakeholders. A public relations device (publicity) pioneered by activists was assimilated into the corporate world. Early publicists had simply brought their own take to the subject.

Saul Alinsky: Activism in the 1960s The stockyards of Chicago gave birth to another great reformer: Saul Alinsky. While researching juvenile delinquency in the area, Alinsky decided he had to shift from watching to acting. He developed a model of community based organizing; it would be to teach a community how to unite and to fight for its rights. He became a central figure in numerous community action efforts in the 1960s, including those in Buffalo, New York, Kansas City, Missouri, and among the migrant workers in California. Clearly Alinsky was not the only activist or radical at work in the 1960s. However, he articulated a vision of activism that correlates with public relations more strongly than theirs did. Alinsky would use non-traditional public relations to attract publicity and put pressure on the power elites in communities. His publicity efforts were designed to prove that a commu­ nity was united and a force to be addressed. His work in Rochester serves as an excellent example. For many people, Rochester, New York means one thing: Eastman Kodak. The Kodak company built and controlled Rochester for decades. It was suspected of discrimination in hiring workers, and in 1964 became the focal point for a series of race riots that tore the town apart. The Rochester Area Council of Churches, a collection of white and black clergy, asked Saul Alinsky for help in extracting concessions for the work­ ers from Kodak. The invitation was enough to ignite an initial firestorm of publicity. Newspapers and radio stations condemned the inviting of a hatemonger who could only make the situation worse. When the con­ servative news media turned against Alinsky, the African American com­ munity decided they definitely needed Alinsky. When he arrived at the airport, Alinsky was asked why he would work against Kodak, a company that had given so much to the black commu­ nity. Alinsky replied, “Maybe I’m uninformed, but as far as I know the 79

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

only thing Kodak has done on the race issue in America is to introduce color film.” Alinsky formed a community group known as FIGHT (Freedom, Integration, God, Honor, Today). He planned the first ever “fart-in.” Rochester’s elite, among whom were Kodak managers, loved their symphony orchestra. The plan was to buy 100 tickets for protesters for a concert when the music would be soft, feed them baked beans before it began, and have them pass gas, loudly, throughout the performance. Talk of the “event” put some pressure on Kodak. Traditional tactics placed greater pressure on Kodak. Starting with the General Assembly of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, Alinksy began collecting proxy votes for Kodak’s upcoming annual meeting. Reports of FIGHT receiving over 5,000 shares raised concern. Soon many other religious organizations and supportive individuals were signing over proxies to FIGHT. Kodak designated FIGHT as the official repre­ sentative of the Rochester black community and began to change its ­hiring practices. Alinsky’s second book, Rules for Radicals, outlines his process for effec­ tive community organizing. His advice is to keep in mind that community organizing is issues management. The organized community will agitate for change. His fifth chapter is titled “Communication” and opens as follows: “One can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one ­exception – and still be effective and successful. That exception is the art of communication” (Alinsky 1971: 81). Many of the comments in his chapter fit perfectly with writings on public relations. Communication, for instance, is viewed as a two-way process. The central role of communication for Alinsky is to create understand­ ing, a point shared with public relations. To create understanding, a com­ municator needs to know the stakeholders. Alinsky believed you could know the stakeholders through experiences. People only understand things through their own experiences and frames of reference. Hence, an organizer must discover and work within the experiences of the people he or she is targeting. “Since people understand only in terms of their own experience, an organizer must have at least a cursory familiarity with their experience” (1971: 84). Through this knowledge the organizer under­ stands the stakeholders’ values and goals. These values and goals then become the focal point of the messages. Alinsky is describing the process of using research to better understand and to more effectively communi­ cate with stakeholders, ideas very germane to public relations. 80

Who Practices Public Relations?

Public relations aspect Saul Alinsky understood the notion of power. Corporations and govern­ ments have it while community groups need to acquire it if they are to create change and promote dialogue. “It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen” (1971: 89). Alinksy also knew that publicity, along with organizing, would help to build power. Rules for Radicals is in many respects a public relations primer for activists with its focus on communication as a mechanism for influence. In addi­ tion, Alinksy often used public communication as a means to re-shape relationships and corporate actions. As they had seen with the muckrak­ ers, corporations in the 1960s needed to bolster public relations efforts in response to the demands of activists such as Alinsky.

Birth of Issues Management Environmentalism was one of the activist forces that developed in the 1960s. Environmental activists shocked corporations in the United States by successfully establishing laws and regulation to curb pollution such as the Clean Air Act of 1970. Science was a critical aspect in the success of environmental activists. The emerging field of environmental science, stimulated by government funding in the United States and the U.K., ­documented the existence of the negative health effects of air pollution on humans. The environmental activists expertly tied business to ­pollution-making corporations, the villain in the developing environmen­ tal narrative. The vilification of corporations made is easier for environ­ mental activists to win policy changes to reduce pollution. By shaping the meaning of pollution, activists rallied public opinion to their side which was then translated into their desired policy changes (Conley 2006; Downs 1972). The environmental activists were pioneering what was to become issues management, systematic communicative efforts designed to influ­ ence policy decisions (Coombs and Holladay 2010). Corporate public relations studied the success of the environmental activists to determine how they might resist new laws and regulations more effectively. The key lesson corporate public relations identified was 81

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

public opinion’s pivotal role in environmental regulation. Corporations began to construct systematic ways of telling their side of the story. “Affected industries implemented a wide variety of environmental PR programs in response to the new environmentalism” (Conley 2006: 26). Electrical utilities, the aluminum industry, the chemical industry, and the glass containers industry all utilized issues management to aggressively preclude the expansion of environmental laws (Conley 2006). Government regulation was to be avoided because it increased the cost of operations for corporations (Coombs and Holladay 2011). The strategies developed by the environmental activists became synthesized into the corporate practice of issues management (Beder 2002; Coombs and Holladay 2011; Grefe and Linsky 1995).

Public relations aspect Issues management has become a sub-discipline within public relations. Many of the major public relations agencies/consultancies offer issues management as one of their services. Some, such as Edelman, combine issues management with crisis communication. Issues management is a recognized element within the public relations practice. Chapter 4 pro­ vides a more detailed discussion of the practice of public relations as part of the discussion of how public relations affects society.

Internet Activism: Going Digital The Internet has been a significant advancement for activism. The Internet provides communication channels that circumvent the gatekeepers of the legacy media and allow activists to take their messages directly to their target audiences. Moreover, the low cost of Internet communication channels fit with the limited budgets of activist organizations. No longer were activists dependent on publicity targeting legacy media as the best alternative for trying to disseminate their messages or to rally people to  action (Ryan 1991). Various Internet channels provide mechanisms for  ­disseminating information, recruiting allies, fundraising, mobilizing 82

Who Practices Public Relations?

s­ upporters, and leveraging corporations to change problematic behaviors (Coombs and Holladay 2012b). Activists have been at the forefront of inte­ grating Internet communication channels into public relations efforts – the development of digital public relations. Internet activism can be divided into pre- and post-social-media stages because social media added new dimensions to the process. In the 1990s, the Internet was instrumental in exposing and reforming sweatshop conditions in the garment industry, forcing the Ford Motor Company to recall hundreds of cars and trucks due to a fire hazard, and pressuring PepsiCo to abandon its holdings in Myanmar (Burma) (Coombs 1998; Heath 1998). Activist groups of all hues, liberal and conservative, have utilized the Internet. The growth of social media has added to the Internet activism dynamic. With social media came more communication channels and new ways that the Internet could be used by activists to ­leverage change.

Pre-social-media Internet activism The American Family Association (AFA) offers an excellent example of how activists utilized the Internet prior to the explosion of social media. The AFA is a very conservative organization that seeks to promote and protect its view of traditional family values. It was founded in 1977 by Reverend Don Wildmon and claims over 2 million members. The AFA is attempting to clean up the entertainment industry by pressuring adver­ tisers. It has been able to force a number of companies to stop advertising on certain television shows with threats of boycotts and the resultant negative publicity. The list of targets includes Burger King, Clorox, and S.  C.  Johnson. The AFA has expanded its operations beyond changing television content to encompass the policies of corporations, to bring them in line with its own view of traditional family values. This translates into the AFA attacking corporations it perceives to support a homosexual agenda. Companies such as Disney and Kraft have felt the wrath of the AFA for providing medical benefits for same-sex partners (General Information, 2005). This is where our story begins. In June of 2005, the AFA called upon people to boycott Ford Motor Company and its related lines of vehicles. The AFA was seeking to reform Ford’s pro-homosexual agenda. Ford was a significant sinner in the eyes of the AFA, for not only did it provide same-sex benefits but it donated 83

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

money to homosexual organizations, helped to sponsor homosexual events, and had even created advertisements targeted toward homosexual car buyers. The AFA boycottford.com website noted: “If one looks for the company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosex­ ual lifestyle, he would be hard-pressed to find a company which has done more than Ford Motor Company. While this is hardly known to the gen­ eral population, it is well known by numerous homosexual organiza­ tions.” The AFA planned to make Americans aware and angry through a campaign conducted largely on the Internet. The AFA’s boycottford.com site was a compilation of documents expos­ ing and indicting Ford’s pro-homosexual agenda. The evidence included statements of tolerance from Ford’s internal documents, lists of prohomosexual events sponsored by Ford, and links to websites that discuss and have examples of Ford’s gay-themed advertisements. The extensive use of links plays to the strength of the Internet: connectivity. People can easily access and navigate through the “evidence.” Ford did not deny any of the claims. The company is proud that it preaches tolerance internally and provides same-sex benefits for employees; its sponsorships and adver­ tising is part of an effort to tap into the lucrative gay market. Word of the boycottford.com website spread rapidly through the Internet. Within three days, over 700 websites had links to the AFA site. After one week, the AFA suspended its boycott after meeting with Ford dealers. The Ford deal­ ers were given the deadline of December 1, 2005 for having Ford address the AFA concerns. If the dealers failed, the boycott would resume. Critical websites, also known as attack sites, are but one Internet chan­ nel that activists can develop. Other prominent channels include listservs, discussion groups, and blogs. A listserv is an email list that allows activists to send an email to everyone on the list. The AFA calls its listserv AFA Action Alerts. The AFA can tell people when and how to act. The email and its website contain links to politicians to make it easier for people to send messages to targeted politicians. People can click and type rather than search for an address. The easier a course of action is, the more likely it is that someone will follow it. The AFA message was also posted to dis­ cussion groups about cars, trucks, and politics. People wrote blogs about the AFA boycott as well. Unfortunately for the AFA, the blogs and discus­ sion postings were mostly supportive of Ford. Still, the AFA action illus­ trates how an array of Internet channels can be mustered in a public relations campaign that targets a corporation. 84

Who Practices Public Relations?

Granted, the AFA is a large activist organization. However, much smaller groups have also shaped corporate policies through the Internet. A website developed by a couple in Georgia facilitated the Ford recall in the 1990s. A small group of dedicated anti-Myanmar activists were instru­ mental in PepsiCo leaving Myanmar (Coombs 1998). The Internet has the potential to draw attention and supporters to an issue. There are even sites dedicated to training activists how to use the Internet for public rela­ tions. Two examples of Internet training for activists can be found at http://netaction.org/training and http://www.actionpa.org/activism. News media coverage of their Internet activities only intensifies the effect, for it drives more people to the websites or postings. Organizations often change their behaviors rather than face the negative information that flows on the Internet and finds its way into the mainstream news media. But using the Internet communication channels is not a guarantee of suc­ cess. There is a massive amount of information on the Internet so it is easy for messages to go unread. Nevertheless, modern activists are far from deterred from exploiting its public relations potential.

Post-social media Internet activism Social media, those Internet channels where users create the content, are being used to facilitate relationship development between an organization and its stakeholders, mostly customers. Social media channels are used to listen to stakeholder concerns and to address those concerns, a traditional aspect of customer relations. Social media can create an immediacy between the organization and stakeholders when the channels are used for two-way communication. Two of the most important social media chan­ nels for relationship building are the social networking site Facebook and the micro-blog Twitter. Social media outlets are considered a potentially valuable resource for organizations that actively u ­ tilize those channels. Gianni Versace S.p.A., the luxury Italian fashion company, utilizes Facebook to engage stakeholders. Versace posts messages on its Facebook page but its fans are free to post messages as well. However, Versace suspended user comments in July of 2011 when activists started posting negative comments about Versace’s connection to sandblasting clothes. Sandblasting is used to give clothing a distressed look. However, the practice is dangerous for workers presenting risks for injuries and illness from the silica dust (Presnal 2012). The Clean Clothes Campaign and Labour Behind the Label are the 85

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

two activist groups that spearheaded the attack on Versace’s Facebook page. Their petition on Change.org, a social petition site, received over 1,200 signa­ tures from around the world requesting Versace to stop the use of sandblast­ ing. In addition, both the Clean Clothes Campaign and Labour Behind the Label used their websites to promote taking action by placing sandblasting comments on the Versace Facebook page. Within a few days of the Facebook attack, Versace’s Tomaso Galli announced: Following more recent CCC’s comments on Versace’s practices, the com­ pany decided to study the issue in depth again and concluded, in agreement with CCC, that it is appropriate to take a proactive stance, and stand against the practice of sandblasting. Versace has specifically asked every supplier (and will ask any new supplier as a condition to work with Versace) to ­certify that they are not using sandblasting (Hall 2011).

Versace was agreeing with the activists’ request and ending the use of sandblasting. Disrupting Versace’s use of its Facebook page was sufficient additional pressure to make the company reconsider the use of sandblast­ ing. This is the new reality of social media. Organizations can use social media to engage stakeholders but their social media channels then present a reputational risk. If activists can effectively disrupt an organization’s social media channel, the social media becomes a reputational threat. Instead of being a source of relationship and reputation building, the neg­ ative activist messages appearing in the company’s social media serve to erode relationships and reputations. Additional examples of social media and Internet activism can be found in Chapter 4.

Public relations aspect Internet activism exercises influence through the sustained efforts to shape public thinking. Internet activism uses a variety of traditional and nontraditional public relations tactics. Traditional tactics include the use of websites, listservs, and various social media channels. Nontraditional tactics include boycotts and in-person protests, including flash mobs facilitated through Internet communication (Coombs and Holladay 2010). Public relations tactics are used to generate power designed to pressure an 86

Who Practices Public Relations?

organization into changing its behavior. The website is used as the hub for the public relations effort. The website provides a central location for the campaign, a reservoir for information and mobilization efforts. The social media channels connect back to the website providing additional avenues for people to receive information about the campaign. Internet Contagion Theory (ICT) explains how these various digital public relations efforts can be combined to generate power for activists and to pressurize an organization into changing its behavior (Coombs and Holladay 2012b). As with earlier public relations developments, activists have been ahead of corporations in the use of digital public relations. Activists consistently are early adopters of websites, discussion groups, and various social media channels to disseminate information, recruit members, mobilize support­ ers, and solicit donations (Hands 2011). Corporations have felt the effects of digital public relations from activists and are slowly learning to use these same digital public relations tactics.

Labor Unions and Public Relations The public relations-related history of labor unions in the United States largely parallels that of activists. The struggle between labor and manage­ ment infuses the history of public relations (Cutlip et al. 1994). Unions were first formed in the early nineteenth century. To recruit and inform their members they needed means of communication, so many of them printed their own magazines and newsletters. These early days were marked by bloody confrontations between labor and management. The Great Railroad Strike of 1887 resulted in 16 strikers being killed. The Homestead Strike of 1892 (at a steel plant near Pittsburg) was a fourmonth battle between labor on one side and the Pinkerton guards and local law enforcement on the other. Unions were fighting to improve the horrific working conditions. Safety and sanitation did not even rise to the level of an afterthought at this time (Manheim 2001). The 1900s witnessed a shift from warfare to negotiation, although violence still did occur. An example is the Ludlow Massacre. Early in 1914, union members were on strike against the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. They and their families were living in a tent city outside of Ludlow, Colorado, forced to stay outside the town because the company 87

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

owned the towns. Tension was high since the strike had lasted much longer than expected. In April, National Guardsmen fired on the tents, killing two women and 11 children (Raucher 1968). Working conditions remained poor for employees. Another example is the Waist factory fire of 1911. A total of 145 men and women, mostly women, died when the Triangle Waist Companies shirtwaist-making facility in New York City caught fire. Some were smothered, some suffocated, and some jumped to their deaths (Echoes from the triangle fire, 1911). The fire attracted media attention and reinforced the idea that working conditions in factories often endangered the health and safety of employees. The passage of the Railroad Labor Act guaranteed labor the right to organize and to bargain. More negotiation began to occur as this and other legislation protected the rights of unions. Labor unions experienced their golden age between 1933 and 1955, reaching the height of their political and economic influence (Manheim 2001). Since the late 1950s, labor unions have waned in numbers and power in  the United States. The decline is epitomized by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981. President Reagan fired the striking members of PATCO, effectively “killing” the union. The media supported the President by vilifying PATCO. Unions began to shift tactics from strikes to corporate campaigns. A corporate campaign is a research-based, long-term, and coordinated action that attacks a corpora­ tion’s reputation in order to change its behavior. Corporate campaigns are a mix of media advocacy (publicity), boycotts, and attempts to influence the votes of shareholders (Manheim 1987). The work of many activist groups today can be described as corporate campaigns.

Public relations aspect From their inception in the United States, labor unions realized the value of public relations. The early confrontations with management were designed to, and did, elicit public sympathy for the workers. Today, unions join with many activists in corporate campaigns. Corporate campaigns are public relations. Various channels are used to reach stakeholders and change their perceptions of a corporation, that is, to erode its reputation. Moreover, labor unions have long used internal public relations to garner 88

Who Practices Public Relations?

and to retain members. While we present them separately, unions and activists share many elements. Their histories are interwoven into the tap­ estry that is the history of public relations, and a result, we group unions with social activists in our expanded view of who practices public relations.

Conclusion Social activists did not magically become public relations practitioners in the 1990s. In reality, social activists were practicing public relations before large corporations existed. The public relations work of social activists spurred the growth of corporate public relations. Social activists, like any stakeholder, can utilize communication in their efforts to influence organizations and other stakeholders, that is, to manage mutually influen­ tial relationships. Any actor in the complex web of relations that includes organizations can practice public relations. We should examine the full realm of what constitutes public relations, not just the more traditional communication tactics organizations use to manage their mutually influential relationships. Moving beyond corporate-centric views and broadening the scope of who practices public relations enriches both the history and practice of public relations.

89

4 Public Relations Influences Society

Thus far we have considered public relations as it involves organizations and their stakeholders. As part of that discussion, we have noted that public rela­ tions has an effect on society. But what about situations where public relations is being used specifically to shape society? Public relations plays a very active role in strategic efforts to change and to prevent change to our society. This chapter seeks to illuminate how public relations impacts society. A variety of theoretical frameworks and case studies are utilized to illustrate the societal effects of public relations. The chapter is divided into four sec­ tions: issues management, social marketing, private politics, and a combi­ nation of the three. Issues management explores the public policy effects of public relations. Social marketing examines how public information campaigns shape society by altering behaviors. Private politics detail how corporate behavior is changed through private rather than policy action. Finally, we consider how the three often overlap and coexist.

Issues Management: A Framework of Effects on Public Policy Issues management is a discipline within public relations that was devel­ oped specifically to address public policy issues. The impetus is derived from corporations feeling the need for a more integrated and effective It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Public Relations Influences Society

approach to shaping policy decisions. Issues management was created in the 1970s to meet that need. The interest in issues management extends beyond corporations. Organizations (any collective) have a need to be proactive, not reactive, in their interactions with the environment (ele­ ments outside of the organization itself ). The environment can either impede an organization’s ability to operate or facilitate it (Heath and Nelson 1986). Issues management is a process organizations can employ to prevent negative developments (problems) and to cultivate a favorable environment (opportunities). Definitions of issues management tend to emphasize either the objec­ tives or the process of issues management. The overriding objective in issues management is participation in the policy making process (Chase 1977, 1980). Issues managers participate in the public policy process in order to influence the development of issues salient to their organizations. Issues are defined as “unsettled matters which are ready for decision” ( Jones and Chase 1979: 11). By affecting the issue, the issues manager hopes to affect the public policies that emanate from it. The goal of this participation is to have the public policy question decided in a manner that is favorable to the issues manager. A process definition of issues management lists the steps involved in the issues management process. The Chase–Jones Process Model, the most influential issues management model, has five steps: (1) issue iden­ tification, (2) issue analysis, (3) issue change strategy option, (4) issue action program, and (5) evaluation. Issue identification centers on detect­ ing issues relevant to an organization. The issues manager scans the envi­ ronment to locate emerging issues. Once located, an issues manager must predict the possible impact the issue might have on the organi­ zation. Issue analysis involves researching the issues in order to create a final prioritization. With research, an issues manager is better able to predict how the issue might impact on the organization. Using this impact assessment, a final prioritized list of issues is assembled. A prior­ itized list is necessary because issues managers can only address one or two issues at a time. The issue change strategy option centers on select­ ing the most feasible and practical strategy for responding. The issue action program involves communicating about the issue to various stakeholders. The stakeholders are sent messages tailored to their needs and through communication channels they utilize. Evaluation of the results is a matter of determining the effects of the issues management 91

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Issue identification

Evaluation

Issue action program

Issue analysis

Issue change strategy option

Figure 4.1  Chase–Jones Model

effort. Success is measured by how closely the actual outcome matches the intended outcome ( Jones and Chase 1979). The objectives and process definitions can be fused into a working definition of issues management. We define issues management as the identification or creation of issues and the application of systematic procedures designed to influence the issue’s resolution in a manner favorable to the issues manager. This definition captures the two critical features of issues man­ agement. First, the definition identifies issues management as a specific set of principles. “Systematic procedures” implies that issues manage­ ment has its own guiding tenets; it is not some unplanned venture. Second, the definition identifies the objective of issues management, the resolu­ tion of policy issues. A weakness in the Chase–Jones Process Model is that it neglects how communication is utilized to manage issues/influence the policy making process. Crable and Vibbert (1985) extended the work of Jones and Chase with the Catalytic Model of issues management. The Catalytic Model is important because it focuses on the role of communication in influencing public policy. Communication is employed to create arousal. The Catalytic 92

Public Relations Influences Society

Dormant status

Potential status

Critical status

Imminent status

Current status

Figure 4.2  Catalytic Model

Model seeks to increase the number of people who are aware of the issue, accept the issue as a valid public concern (grant it legitimacy), and support the preferred policy option for resolving the issue. Communication is used to spread the word about the issue, create legitimacy, and win sup­ port for the policy proposal. The Catalytic Model focuses on the status or importance an issue has for stakeholders, including policy makers. Influence on policy making is a result of using communication to manage the status of the issue. An issue has five different status levels that reflect the life cycle of an issue: (1)  potential, (2)  imminent, (3) current, (4) critical, and (5) dormant. Communication is used to affect which status, or stage, an issue is at, and its importance for stakeholders (Crable and Vibbert 1985). At the potential status, stakeholders begin to show interest in an issue. The key communicative action is to define the issue. The definition estab­ lishes the boundaries of the issue and can serve to attract or repel stake­ holders to the issue. At the imminent status, additional stakeholders are beginning to accept the issue. An issue moves beyond the small circle of people who created the issue. It builds legitimacy through endorsements 93

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

and associations with history, tradition, or values. Legitimacy messages help stakeholders to realize their connection to the issue and accept that it is important to them. The issue is gaining power but is not widely recog­ nized in society (Crable and Vibbert 1985). At the current status, the issue is circulated to a wide array of stakehold­ ers. News media coverage or wide Internet exposure are used to reach the current status. This status is marked by awareness of an issue and the issues manager’s side of the issue (the desired policy option). At the critical status, there is pressure for a decision to be made. Issue managers use persuasion to win support for their side of the issue (policy option) and to pressure government agents into acting on the issue. Once a decision is made, an issue is resolved and moves to the dormant status. It is resolved for the time being. An issue remains dormant until someone or group recognizes its potential and attempts to revive it. But interest can fade at any point, whatever status levels have been passed, allowing the issue to slip into dormancy. Communication is a critical factor for keeping people aroused and interested in the issue. However, opponents of the issue can craft messages designed to create quiescence so that the issue fades away (Crable and Vibbert 1985). The Catalytic Model is about the use of communication to influence agendas. By increasing awareness and legitimacy, issues managers can influence the public agenda (what people know about the issue) and the policy agenda (what the government will act upon). Public relations plays an active role in issues management and, therefore, in shaping society through policy decisions. A few case studies will illustrate how this can be done, and how public relations can be used either to create or to ­prevent change. Issues management will involve conflicting views of how to resolve an issue. This means two or more people or groups can be trying to manage the same issue simultaneously. The news media will focus on the “lead” issues managers for the various sides. In fact, the various sides of an issue will be composed of coalitions. Coalitions are groups of people who come together to combine their efforts to influence the process and outcomes. As the Catalytic Model emphasizes, issues management is often a process of drawing various people and groups to one’s own side of the issue. The existence of coalitions reflect the fact that in policy decisions there is power in numbers. As Heath (1997) notes, power is a function of the num­ ber of people supporting an issue. Hence, issues managers try to recruit 94

Public Relations Influences Society

allies and build coalitions (Heath 1997; Coombs 1998). For example, in the 1990s, the railroad and insurance industries joined forces to combat national legislation that would permit trucks to be three trailers long. The remainder of this chapter presents brief case studies that illustrate this issues management process. They will focus on the primary issues managers. However, bear in mind that there were other forces at work in each of the cases.

EPA bans Alar under pressure Until 1989, Uniroyal manufactured daminozide, a chemical that allows apples to stay on the trees longer. By staying on the trees longer, the apples looked better and were easier for growers to harvest. Daminozide was used for other fruits as well. The trade name for daminozide was Alar. In 1989, the Alar issue burst upon the scene. In a span of a few weeks Americans went from having no idea that Alar existed to demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban its use. Alar was banned shortly after public relations efforts moved the issue to the front of the media, public, and policy agendas. The victory came with an unintended consequence that we will address at the end of the case. Concern about Alar dates back to the 1970s. Early research indicated that when daminozide breaks down under heat, such as in processing fruits, a carcinogen is formed. Traces of Alar were found in samples of baby food and apple juice during the early 1980s. However, the EPA kept Alar on the market. There was an issue but not many people knew or cared about it. Enter the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC funded and released a study on daminozide titled “Intolerable risk: pesticides in our children’s food.” The report provided further evi­ dence that daminozide can become a carcinogen when heated. Admittedly, the levels have to be very high to pose a threat. Fenton Communications, a public relations firm, was hired by NRDC to help turn the public against Alar. The key to the issue management effort was to make Americans aware of the risk, believe the risk was real, and pressure the EPA for change. Fenton Communications orchestrated a launch of the NRDC’s report on February 26, 1989. 60 Minutes featured a piece titled “A is for apple” on the link between Alar and cancer with a focus on the threat to children. Meryl Streep and other celebrities appeared on talk shows and spoke before 95

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Congress to testify about the dangers of Alar, especially for children. Children were at greater risk because of their smaller body weights and longer-term exposure to daminozide than adults. A grassroots groups known as Mothers and Others for Pesticides Limits was created to support the cause as well. A cancer threat to children was a huge news draw. Very rapidly people became aware of Alar, believed in its harmfulness, and wanted EPA action on it. In March of 1989, the EPA banned the use of Alar. Uniroyal had already voluntarily ended production of the product. The banning was as much a response to public outrage as to the cancer threat. The EPA did not feel Alar was an immediate threat but said that it could pose a risk over time. Its announcement about Alar stated that the NRDC evidence did not pro­ vide definitive proof that Alar would hurt children immediately. In fact, the EPA encouraged people to continue eating apples that were exposed to Alar, although it admitted the concern: “In the last few weeks there has been a growing public controversy over the potential harmful effects of a chemical called Alar, which is used by apple growers to retain the crispness of their fruit as it goes to market” (Negin 1996). This statement seems to indicate that public pressure was the reason for the ban. The NRDC had executed a successful issues management effort. Alar had quickly gone through the critical, current, and – the problem having been resolved – into dormant status. Issues have at least two sides. The apple industry opposed the NRDC efforts, and paid Hill and Knowlton US$1 million to mount a defense. But this public relations effort was “too little too late.” The NRDC had cap­ tured the attention and minds of the American people. The apple growers filed a libel suit against the NRDC, CBS, and Fenton Communications. The case against them was dismissed in 1994. The Alar case then became a rallying cry for the food industry. News reports included stories about the Alar “scare” and Alar “hoax.” The result was the development and pas­ sage of food disparagement laws in 13 states. These are also known as “food libel laws” and were the grounds for the beef industry’s 1998 lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey. The purpose is to prevent people from saying bad things about food that could then decrease sales of that food. In these states, people are limited in their efforts to raise concerns about food safety. Food safety groups won with Alar but the victory was costly because it provided the impetus for legislation that reduces the ability to raise food safety issues (Negin 1996). The Alar issue changed society far 96

Public Relations Influences Society

beyond the banning of a chemical. It has altered the manner in which many food safety issues must be publicly addressed. It’s clear that public relations campaigns can have wide and unintended consequences.

AMA’s objection to national health insurance On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That legislation was the most significant reform to healthcare in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Prior to this reform, President Clinton had been a champion of health insurance for all Americans. The issue has been that millions of Americans have no health insurance and that hurts society. True to the Catalytic Model, healthcare reform in the United States was not a new issue but one revived from dormancy on a number of occasions. National health insurance began as an issue in the 1930s but never moved very far in the issues management process (Key 1964). It began to attract greater attention and legitimacy in 1948. In January of that year, President Truman called upon the country to adopt compulsory national health insurance. He felt national health insurance was necessary “to protect all our people equally against . . . ill-health” (Harris 1969: 36). Truman’s re-election in 1948 was a sign of support for national health insurance. Truman began his attempt to influence policy making with his 1949 State of the Union Address. He restated the need for national health insur­ ance. The poor were not receiving adequate healthcare because they lacked insurance. Truman outlined his plan in later speeches. National insurance would make sure all Americans had access to healthcare. The system would pay physicians but not make them employees of the state or interfere with how they treated patients. National health insurance was a way to ensure proper healthcare for all Americans without infringing on the rights of physicians (Harris 1969). The Truman administration was trying to build awareness of and support for national health insurance. The President’s messages made people aware of the issue, gave it legiti­ macy, and persuaded people to support it. Public opinion polls in 1948 showed 58 percent of the American people supported a national health insurance program. In 1949, Congressional mail ran 2.5 to 1 in support of the program (Starr 1982). The American Medical Association (AMA) was not one of the groups swayed by President Truman’s messages. The AMA decided to oppose 97

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Truman because the program could reduce physician autonomy. It asked each member to donate US$25 in order to build a war chest to fight national health insurance (AMA war chest, 1948). AMA viewed national health insurance as “socialized medicine”; they believed it was unnecessary and would reduce, not improve, the quality of healthcare in the United States. The public relations firm of Whitaker & Baxter was hired to orchestrate the counterattack. The AMA would spend over one million dollars a year in its efforts to defeat national health insur­ ance (Key 1964; Harris 1969). The AMA campaign ran during 1949 and 1950. The typical public rela­ tions tactics were used: pamphlets, publicity through the news media, and speaking programs. The central message was that socialized medicine was evil. This perspective was presented at a time when socialism was a very negative term in the United States (Burrow 1963). A successful link between socialism and national health insurance would sink the program. Citizens would be aroused to oppose rather than support it. The pamphlets are a prime example of the socialized medicine angle. The most widely circulated pamphlet was “The voluntary way is the American way.” It was 15 pages long and followed a question and answer format. Here is a sample text: Q. Who is for Compulsory Health Insurance? A. The Federal Security Administration. The President. All who seri­ ously believe in a Socialistic State. Every leftwing organization in America …The Communist Party. Q. Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of American life? A. Lenin thought so. He declared: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” (Starr 1982: 43–4)

Truth was not the issue. The quotation from Lenin has never been found to exist. The purpose of the public relations tactic was to link national health insurance to socialism. The news media were willing to follow the publicity materials gener­ ated by the AMA effort. Press releases, “neutral” experts speaking on the radio, and press conferences echoed that national health insurance was socialized medicine (Paletz and Entman 1981; Starr 1982). The neutral experts talked about socialized medicine and the media coverage of the 98

Public Relations Influences Society

issue accepted the socialized medicine frame for national health insurance (Harris 1969). The media agenda reflected the AMA’s desire to reject the national heath insurance proposal. A legion of speakers was mobilized to address community opinion leaders directly. A partial listing of the AMA speaking tour included 1,200 trade associations, 1,500 Kiwanis clubs, 4,500 Lions clubs, 2,300 Rotary clubs, and 9,000 YMCA city associations (Burrow 1963). The speakers program served to amplify and reinforce the medi­ ated messages about socialized medicine. We all know how the story ends. The United States still has a problem with people lacking health insurance. By the end of 1949, public opinion polls found that only 39 percent favored national health insurance, well down from the 58 percent just the year before. By 1950, Congressional mail had shifted from support of the program to 4 to 1 against national health insurance (Key 1964; Starr 1982). The public agenda had been influ­ enced to oppose national health insurance. The national health insurance program was repeatedly voted down in Congress. The evidence suggests that the AMA’s success in labeling national health insurance as socialized medicine significantly prevented the policy making process. Public rela­ tions was part of the reason the United States did not adopt a national health insurance program and still has not to this day.

Local battles: retailing and healthcare The Los Angeles area is a very attractive retail market. Walmart has been trying to strengthen its position there for a number of years. But it was dealt a blow in October 2002 when the City Council of Inglewood passed a ban on building large “box stores.” The ban would not allow construc­ tion of a facility over 155,000 square feet that would sell over 20,000 nontaxable items like food. Walmart supercenters are over 200,000 square feet and sell food. The ban was later rescinded under threat of a lawsuit. Walmart, however, chose to avoid another battle with an unfriendly city council. Instead, it went to the people: it collected over 6,500 signatures in support of a ballot initiative, which would, if enough favorable votes were cast, allow Walmart to build the supercenter (Lucas 2004). Walmart spent over US$1 million on the campaign to win the vote, including in it extensive issue advertising. They were opposed by a num­ ber of groups, such as the United Food and Commercial Union, the Coalition for a Better Inglewood, and various religious organizations. 99

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

One rally against the initiative featured the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In April of 2004 the ballot was held. It failed, with 39.3 percent voting “Yes” and 60.6 percent voting “No.” Walmart had lost this battle in the war to enter the Los Angeles area (Buckley 2004). When we think of hospitals, we typically think of the area general hos­ pital. It is a non-profit institution that provides a variety of services to the community. General hospitals face many burdens in delivering healthcare to the community. Of particular note is emergency care. Emergency rooms are costly to operate since many patients are under-insured or have no insurance. General hospitals balance the cost of emergency care with their other services, such as surgeries. Many outpatient surgeries are “profitable.” The procedures can be performed for less than what insur­ ance will pay. These “profits” are used to offset losses in areas such as emergency services and psychiatric care, and to provide community health outreach programs. A Free-standing Ambulatory Surgery Center (FASC) is a growing kind of profitable healthcare service. FASCs are also known as “niche hospi­ tals” and “surgicenters.” They are operated by owner physicians, and pro­ vide only selected outpatient surgery and can be highly selective in their patients. By limiting themselves to surgical procedures that are profitable and patients that are fully insured, a FASC can turn in a nice profit for the investors. The problem is that general hospitals suffer when a FASC appears in town. The general hospital will suffer a drop in revenue as the “profitable” procedures are drawn away while they continue to absorb the cost of emergency care and treating the under-insured and uninsured. The result is often cuts in services provided, in community outreach, and in staff by the general hospital. In 2003, Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System was faced with the prospect of a FASC opening near its facility in Mattoon, Illinois. Sarah Bush admin­ istrators knew they would be fighting a two-front battle. The first front was the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. This body regulates the building of new healthcare facilities to prevent over-providing healthcare to a geographic area. This battle would involve financial and health ser­ vices analysis. The second front was the patient base of Sarah Bush. Sarah Bush was going to publicly oppose the building of the new FASC. However, local residents would be told by FASC supporters how this facil­ ity would provide competition, better care, and even lower healthcare costs. There would be a battle for local opinion. 100

Public Relations Influences Society

The petition to build the FASC was known to Sarah Bush but would not become public until the official public hearing for the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board was announced. That would be a three- to sixmonth time frame. Sarah Bush took the initiative of defining the issue early. The center was defined as a threat and not a benefit to local health­ care. It would exploit their advantage of selective patient care to drain money from Sarah Bush. In turn, Sarah Bush would be forced to end much of its extensive community outreach programs such as dental care for children. The well-documented negative effects of a FASC on general hospitals were used to support their definition of the situation. Employees were briefed so that they could explain the issue to those who might ask about it. Sarah Bush used advertisements, direct mail, local speaking engagements, and newspaper interviews (the area has no local television stations) to explain the problems. Employees and community supporters wore maroon ribbons, the color of Sarah Bush. The local newspaper sup­ ported Sarah Bush in its opposition to the FASC. A good sign for Sarah Bush was the actual public hearing. Anyone in the community could speak. Those speaking for the FASC were the physi­ cians hoping to invest in the center. Those speaking for Sarah Bush were a “who’s who” of local political, business, and community leaders. The news coverage and support for Sarah Bush suggest the hospital won the battle for community opinion. It won with the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board as well. The Board ruled there was no need for an addi­ tional healthcare facility in the area. Public relations had played an impor­ tant role in Sarah Bush’s effort to defeat the FASC and to maintain the support of the local community.

Shaping Public Behavior Public relations can be used to shape public behaviors and attitudes apart from the policy process. Most of these efforts are a form of social market­ ing. Underlying most social marketing is the process of moving people from awareness to action, much as in issues management. McGuire (1981) has identified six basic steps in social marketing: (1) presentation, target is exposed to the message; (2) attention, target pays attention to the mes­ sage; (3) comprehension, target can understand the message; (4) yielding, 101

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

the target accepts the message/attitude change; (5) retention, the target remembers the message; and (6) action, target engages in the desired behavior. This is a logical sequence. People are unlikely to change a behav­ ior if they cannot remember why it should be changed. People are unlikely to remember a message if they disagree with it. People are unlikely to agree with a message if they do not understand it. People cannot under­ stand a message they do not attend to and will not attend to a message unless they are exposed to it. Unlike issues management, there typically are not “sides” in social mar­ keting. People do not openly oppose most efforts designed to improve society. The opponents are individuals who are skilled at resisting persua­ sive messages. People can avoid them, ignore, misinterpret them, reject them, or choose not to change behaviors. For example, even with laws and campaigns, many people still do not wear seat belts. The challenge is to break through these defenses and develop the desired target behavior. Kim Witte has refined our understanding of how social marketing mes­ sages shape behaviors by focusing on the area of health risk messages. Her extended parallel process model (EPPM) synthesizes fear appeal research to develop an effective means for using fear in persuasive messages. In fact most social marketing messages employ fear appeals, messages that arouse fear to induce compliance (Witte et al. 2001). People who receive a message make an appraisal about the threat and the efficacy of the recom­ mendations (i.e. ways to address the threat). For the threat, people deter­ mine if the threat is relevant to them (whether they are susceptible to the risk) and whether or not it is significant (the risk is of significant harm). Why should they bother if the risk is unrelated to them or is insignificant? Perceived efficacy involves both response efficacy and self-efficacy. The belief that the requested behavior will work (be effective) is referred to as “response efficacy.” “Self-efficacy” refers to the belief that they can per­ form the behavior. To be motivated to act, people must perceive both response efficacy and self-efficacy. The appraisal of threat and efficacy results in one of three responses: (1) no response, (2) danger control response, or (3) fear control response. If the threat is irrelevant or minor, there is no response. If people decide the threat is relevant and significant, fear should move them to action. If people perceive response efficacy to be high, they accept the message and act to control the danger or risk; this is a “protection motivation response.” In contrast, the defensive motivation response is a rejection of the 102

Public Relations Influences Society

­ essage. In this case, people perceive that they themselves cannot prevent m the danger (i.e. they have low self-efficacy), or doubt that acting as recom­ mended would avert the threat in any case; they believe there is no use in controlling the danger. They might distort the message (i.e. use selective attention) or attempt to control their fear (the defensive motivation) by ignoring, denying, or discrediting the message (saying that it is trying to manipulate them) (Witte et al. 2001). Campaigns to address social issues rely on some combination of educa­ tion, engineering, and enforcement to succeed. Education is the most obvious part for public relations. Public information campaigns educate people about dangers and ways to remove those dangers from their lives. An example would be knowing that wearing a seat belt increases your chances of surviving an automobile accident. Engineering attempts to create an environment where people will face fewer risks. Air bags in cars are an example of engineering as are guardrails on highways. Finally, enforcement is composed of laws and regulations designed to protect people. Laws requiring the use of seat belts would be an example of enforcement. While recognizing any public information campaign mixes the three E’s (education, engineering, and enforcement), we will focus on education because it most overtly entails public relations.

Keep America Beautiful In 1953, volunteers formed the Keep America Beautiful organization in order to improve the appearance of local communities. In 1961, the Ad Council began working with the organization. It provided free expertise in developing social marketing campaigns (or public information cam­ paigns). The Keep America Beautiful campaign focused on pollution. The idea was to create awareness of how litter and other pollution were dam­ aging the environment and how individuals had a responsibility to help solve the problem. The campaign needed to combat negative attitudes and behaviors that led to pollution. There was some success with the early “Suzy Spotless” messages. Suzy scolded people for littering. For two straight years the National Litter Index dropped. The big success was making the environment part of American values. By the 1980s, environmental concern was established as a societal value in the United States. Much of the success of this social marketing effort is linked to the public service announcement (PSA) known 103

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

as the “Crying Indian.” (A PSA can appear in print, posters, or on radio, television, or the Internet.) This striking visual PSA, of a tearful Native American surveying the litter around him, increased the number of peo­ ple aware of and concerned about littering. On Earth Day in 1971, a PSA featuring Native American actor Chief Iron Eyes Cody appeared for the first time. The tagline line was, “People start pollution. People can stop it.” Iron Eyes Cody became synonymous with environmental concerns and Americans moved towards adopting a new value. The message was simple: do not litter. People could fall in line with that and the growing importance of the environment in general suggests that they continue to do so. At the peak of the campaign, Keep America Beautiful reported receiving more than 2,000 letters a month from people wanting to take part in their local efforts. Keep America Beautiful reported that local teams had helped to reduce litter by as much as 88 percent in 300 communities, 38 states, and several countries. The success of the Iron Eyes Cody PSA for the anti-litter campaign led to hundreds of other environmental messages through the years under the Keep America Beautiful banner (Pollution, 2005). Of course the campaign also benefited from new anti-littering laws (enforcement) and the provision of more trash containers for motorists (engineering). Keep America Beautiful’s efforts followed McGuire’s (1981) progres­ sion. The anti-litter messages were placed in various media outlets as PSAs and designed to catch the target’s attention. The messages were easy to comprehend: if you don’t litter pollution is reduced. Americans became aware that littering was contributing to pollution and seemed to accept that argument. Iron Eyes Cody helped to make the message memorable. Ultimately people did seem to change behaviors, since littering declined around the country. While successful, the campaign did not eliminate all littering. A campaign will only be effective for part of the target audience. No campaign can reach all of the people. Campaign planners must be satisfied with modest success rates. Witte’s work allows us to delve deeper into the success of Keep America Beautiful (Witte et al. 2001). For at least part of the target audience, litter and pollution did generate fear. The threat was relevant and significant. Moreover, the response efficacy was high. It is easy not to litter and not littering will help to reduce pollution. Hence, people in the target group did engage in protection motivation and did stop littering. Others in the target population kept littering. They could have deemed the threat minor 104

Public Relations Influences Society

or unimportant to them. Another explanation is that the litter bugs did not think the solution would work so they adopted a defensive motivation response. However we choose to analyze it, Keep America Beautiful did help to change American society by altering littering behaviors and help­ ing to instill environmental concerns as a value in America. This success was a result of the public relations harnessed through social marketing.

Let’s Move First Lady Michelle Obama decided to make childhood obesity the social issue she would try to address. Her concerns became the “Let’s Move” campaign, an effort designed to improve children’s health in a generation by reducing the childhood obesity problem. The pledge for the initiative e­ ncapsulates the key concerns of exercise and diet. The complete pledge can be found at the Let’s Move web site. The campaign has five pillars: (1) create a healthy start for kids, (2) empower parents and caregivers, (3) provide healthy food in schools, (4) improve access to affordable, healthy food, and (5) increase physical activity (America’s move, n.d.). The effort seeks to draw children, parents, schools, local officials, community leaders, chefs, and healthcare providers into the campaign. For instance, there is an eleven-page action plan just for parents. Parents are urged to set an example for healthy eating and to encourage fresh fruit as snacks. The initiative sought to be c­ omprehensive and more than a simple slogan designed to get children to play more. The Let’s Move campaign is integrated around a central website. The website provides resources for all the target audiences, details on healthy eating and exercise, and steps to take aid in success. There is also back­ ground information on childhood obesity (the problem) and links to other groups such as the PreventObesity.net social networking site created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Let’s Move takes advantage of social media with a presence on Facebook, Twitter, Meetup, and YouTube. There is also a blog, an email list, and a Spanish-language version of the site. An array of online communication channels are utilized along with events by ambassadors such as Michelle Obama to get people directly involved in the campaign. Let’s Move began February 9, 2010. On its first and second year anni­ versaries questions were raised about its effectiveness. Was Let’s Move improving the health of children in the United States? The biggest success in year one was the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. 105

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

This act provides government funding for federal school meals and sets national standards for any food sold in a school, this includes vending machines. Experts agreed the act is essential to pillar number three that involves healthy food in schools (Oglivie 2011). However, there was no clear evidence the campaign had improved the health of children. In year two, the obesity rate in U.S. children held steady for the first time in years. A lack of an increase in childhood obesity was taken as a sign of success for Let’s Move. Also the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was operating in thousands of schools and would keep expanding. This means healthier food for  ­thousands of students ( Jaslow 2012). Though lacking over­ whelming signs of success, Let’s Move seemed to be making some pro­ gress in achieving its objectives. Experts agree that it will take many years before the true effects of the campaign on childhood health can be fully evaluated (Oglivie 2011). More time and analysis of the campaign is needed to gauge its effect but it has the qualities recommended by McGuire and by Witte.

Zombie Apocalypse The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is a government agency in the United States tasked with protecting the public health. The CDC accom­ plishes this task through “health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and ­disability, and preparedness for new health threats” (CDC Mission 2010). Disasters are a threat to public health if people are not prepared for disasters. Since 2003, the U.S. government has been urging people to pre­ pare by encouraging people to create family disaster plans and kits (Emergency preparedness 2006). In 2011, the CDC decided to encourage disaster preparedness using a unique angle, zombies. Zombies are favorite element in popular culture including movies, tel­ evision shows, graphic novels, and video games. In May of 2011, the CDC posted a blog entitled “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse.” The CDC site provided information about how to prepare for a zombie attack. The material was the information used to create disaster plans and kits that could be used for any emergency. The message did attract attention. Visits to the CDC website jumped from 3,000 in a week to 30,000 the day the Zombie Apocalypse was posted eventually crashing the site. Twitter followers jumped from 12,000 to over 1.2 million is a few days (Bell 2011). Other agencies in the United States and even Canada 106

Public Relations Influences Society

began to adopt the Zombie approach. In Canada, the zombies were used to demonstrate and promote the learning of CPR (Adams 2012). While there is no evidence to prove the increased awareness led to the creation of more plans, the CDC preparedness message was reaching a larger and  more varied audience than ever before, especially young people (Government zombie 2012). The Zombie Apocalypse has been so popular that it became a regular element of the CDC’s Internet footprint. As noted by the CDC: Wonder why Zombies, Zombie Apocalypse, and Zombie Preparedness continue to live or walk dead on a CDC web site? As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with pre­ paredness messages has proven to be a very effective platform. We continue to reach and engage a wide variety of audiences on all hazards prepared­ ness via Zombie Preparedness; and as our own director, Dr. Ali Khan, notes, “If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apoca­ lypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or ter­ rorist attack.” So please log on, get a kit, make a plan, and be prepared! (Zombie preparedness 2012).

The materials include a zombie blog, an educators website with materi­ als, zombie preparedness posters to download, a novella, buttons and widgets for zombie preparedness, and links to the CDCs web materials, Twitter feed, and Facebook page for more information about preparedness. Overall, the blog posting reactions are favorable for the campaign. A few people were critical of spending money on a “silly” message but most defended the Zombie Apocalypse and some even took the desired actions. Here are some sample messages: If this wasn’t such a waste of taxpayer dollars (and Federal employee time) it might be funny. The people who are whining about wasted taxpayer dollars are missing the fact that 95% + of preparations for zombie apocalypse are useful for natural or man-made disaster, and that this presentation probably increases compliance. It’s rare that you see a federal agency do something clever. Nice market­ ing, and nice work. Clever way to get people to prepare for disasters. (Zombie preparedness 2012) 107

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

The blog posts are only anecdotal evidence the campaign went beyond awareness to influence attitudes and behaviors. Still, the Zombie Apocalypse was highly visible and reached a younger audience, a target group difficult to reach with preparedness messages.

RED Campaign Cause or cause-related marketing ties a social issue to the purchase of  a  product or service. A cause marketing effort has four elements: (1)  a  product or service, (2) a non-profit that represents a social issue, (3)  a  ­corporation, and (4) a partnership that generates revenue. At the heart of cause marketing is a corporation and a non-profit forming a part­ nership. Their partnership identifies products or service that will be part of the cause marketing effort. The corporation agrees to pay a certain percentage of the sales to the non-profit. Hence, consumers can help to combat a social issue by simply buying a product or service. The non-profit makes money, the social issue is addressed, consumers receive products or services, consumers feel good about the purchase, and the corporation increases sales while improving its reputation. The idea is that everyone wins in cause marketing. Critics dislike the idea that people believe they can shop their way to a better world and prefer a more comprehensive approach to CSR (Rosenman 2007). The (RED) campaign, originally known as Product (RED), has been a global cause marketing campaign involving a number of corpora­ tions partnering with the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa. The Global Fund is a non-profit that combats AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. A variety of corporations have agreed to donate a percentage of their sales of specific products or services to the Global Fund tar­ geted to fight AIDS in Africa. The lineup of corporate sponsors does change over time. In 2012, the following corporations had a least one product or service that was (RED): American Express, Apple, CocaCola, Starbucks, Tourneau, and Tous (Partners 2012). Here is how (RED) works: consumers buy (RED), a percentage of the sales goes to the Global Fund, the Global Fund uses the money to buy drugs used to  combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, and people in Africa are given life­ saving medicines (How (RED) works 2012). (RED) began in 2006 with massive media attention because the musical celebrity Bono was ­ 108

Public Relations Influences Society

p­ romoting the cause. While media attention has dwindled, (RED) con­ tinues its global operation. The (RED) campaign is not without its critics. While (RED) has gen­ erated millions of dollars for HIV/AIDS medication in Africa, there are ­concerns with transparency and marketing. Transparency refers to the percentage of a sale price that goes to (RED). A common complaint is that it is difficult to find out how much money for a product or service goes to (RED). Consumers have complained about the lack of transpar­ ency and their disappointment in discovering the percentage is often very small. There is also very little information about how much each partner contributes annually. Marketing involves the rather sizable amount of money the corporate sponsors spend on promoting their involvement with (RED). The problem many people see is that the  HIV/AIDS problem in Africa would have greater funding if the money for marketing (RED) were simply donated to the Global Fund (Arnoldy 2007). Danish researchers Lisa Ann Richey and Stefano Ponte consider (RED)  to be a type of “brand aid.” Brand Aid is explained as Brand +  Celebrity + Cause. Corporations exploit the suffering of others to make a profit in the name of corporate social responsibility. Brand Aid provides an easy solution to current crises in international devel­ opment – one that enables corporations to raise their corporate social  responsibility (CSR) profile without substantially changing their ­normal business practices while consumers engage in low-cost heroism without meaningfully increasing their awareness of global production-­ consumption  relations or the struggles of people who are living with HIV/AIDS (Richey and Ponte 2011).

Cause marketing allows corporations and consumers to feel good about themselves while simultaneously distancing themselves from the prob­ lems and solutions. The counter argument is that (RED) has generated US$195 million for HIV/AIDS in Africa and the programs it has funded have reached over 14 million people (Results 2012). For any social market­ ing effort, there are winners and losers (Dutta-Bergman 2005). We must carefully examine the campaigns to assess their overall positive or nega­ tive effects on society. 109

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM) The Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM) (translated into English “the initiative for a new social market economy”) utilizes public relations to create a more favorable climate for business in both the public and policy arenas. The INSM seeks to promote neoliberal policies such as deregulation and tax cuts for businesses – to have people define the poli­ cies as positive. Refer to Box  4.1 for additional information about ­neoliberalism. The group appears to be a social movement driven by con­ cerned citizens. In reality, the INSM is funded by employer associations in the metal and electrical industries and represents business interests (Mueller 2007). Public relations is central to the INSM. Here is how the INSM describes how it works: “uses the possibilities of modern commu­ nication in order to transmit its ordoliberal message to policy makers and the population. Depending on the topic, the initiative combines classical advertising, PR and press work as well as online communication” (How does the INSM work? n.d.). The INSM directly notes public relations in its statement while the press work and online communication are strong ­elements of public relations as well.

Box 4.1  Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is a loosely structured political economics theory that promotes the pursuit of business interests through “strong pri­ vate property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey 2005: 2). Government should help to create and to promote markets but should not be involved in the regulation of the market. Businesses must be free of regulations and allowed to pursue their interests in the market. Neoliberalism agitates for deregulation in societies that have regulations and pursues privatization of industries. Governments adopting a neoliberal perspective will support busi­ ness rights over the quality of life for workers and protection of the environment (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism supports globalization efforts through an emphasis on free trade and the need to promote business interests. 110

Public Relations Influences Society

The INSM is not a true front group. If you go to its website, the INSM is open in revealing that its primary funding is derived from the metal and electrical industries (Who supports the INSM? n.d.). However, the INSM does use public relations tactics that obscure the source of the message. The INSM has a strong reliance on credible third-party sources from gov­ ernment, business, and think tanks (academics). The third-party sources create the appearance of non-partisan support for INSM policies and vali­ date the claim that the INSM is an inclusive movement that includes a strong citizen support element. In addition, the third-party sources are used to attract media attention and become the de facto face of INSM. The INSM provides extensive media training for their third-party advocates and actively works to book their appearances and interviews with various media outlets (Mueller 2007). The INSM itself notes it uses “prominent personalities from the economy, the sciences and society as whole” in its communication efforts (How does the INSM work? n.d.). The danger is that the public sees the third-party sources pushing the reforms, not the INSM itself, because the media fail to mention the con­ nection between the two entities (Mueller 2007). By obscuring the source of the message, the INSM prevents others from understanding the poten­ tial bias in the messages – an effect created by true front groups (Fitzpatrick and Palenchar 2006). The INSM is using accepted public relations tactics to promote its agenda through sources perceived to be independent on the issues. Some non-traditional publicity efforts by the INSM include ­creating spoof awards and paying to have their messages written into soap opera scripts. In 2003 and 2004, the INSM and the newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) created spoof awards for those helping or hindering social reform. The INSM and FAS picked the nominees and ­voting was controlled by a jury selected by the sponsors. “Blocker of the Year” was a person who opposed INSM policies while the “Reformer of the Year” was a third-party representative of the INSM (Mueller 2007). In 2002, the INSM paid about €58,000 to have scripts on the soap opera Marienhof reflect support for its agenda. The INSM’s effort was revealed in 2005 creating a minor scandal. INSM leadership expressed regret for the incident but argued its goal of providing economic education for televi­ sions viewers was valid. The INSM is active online through its website. One service offered by the website is a section providing educational materials for teachers. Under the guise of providing educational material 111

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

about economic matters, the INSM presents educational material sup­ portive of their neoliberal agenda (Mueller 2007). Ulrich Mueller (2007) provides a thorough analysis of the INSM’s pub­ lic relations efforts to promote a neoliberal agenda in Germany. His analy­ sis notes that the INSM learned from social movements how to leverage the power of public relations. Mueller argues that all interests have a right to use public relations to present their views. His concern is interest groups lack transparency through efforts to conceal the actual sources of public relations messages. This includes efforts to make it appear as though third-party endorsers are independent when they appear in the news media. The INSM’s efforts illustrate the dual role of issues manage­ ment in influencing public and policy arenas.

Private Politics Issues management began with a focus on influencing public policy deci­ sions (Crable and Vibbert 1985; Heath and Nelson 1986; Jones and Chase 1979). Over time that focus expanded to include influencing corporate behavior directly (e.g., Botan and Taylor 2004; Grunig and Repper 1992; Heath 2005; Jaques 2006). In other words, activists were now taking their demands for organizational reforms directly to corporations instead of trying to establish new governmental requirements for dictating corpo­ rate behavior. Corporations have been amenable to the shift because selfregulation is preferable to government regulation. Self-regulation costs less and allows corporations greater control over the details of the regula­ tion (Coombs and Holladay 2011). Political scientists refer to the shift from public policy directly to corporate behaviors as private politics. Private politics represent a shift in the locus of constraints on corporate activity. The shift is, from the government to the corporation itself, encouraged or compelled by activists groups such as non-government organizations (NGOs). It has been argued that activists have consciously shifted from the governmental to the private arena to achieve their goals (Diermeier 2007). Baron (2003) describes private politics as follows: “A ­private-politics campaign could have as components the selection of the  target, direct action against the firm, communication with the ­public,  initiation of a boycott, and bargaining” (p. 34). It is clear that 112

Public Relations Influences Society

c­ ommunication, with an emphasis on public relations, is central to private politics. Public relations researchers have argued for the potential of pub­ lic relations to generate power for activists that can be leveraged to alter corporate behaviors. Moreover, this power from public relations is enhanced by the Internet (Coombs 1998; Coombs and Holladay 2012b; Heath 1998). The effects of private politics can be as simple as a public commitment to a course of action or as complex as the development of  specific self-regulatory guidelines monitoring by independent, thirdparties (Baron 2003). Through private politics, activists can avoid the time, costs, and u ­ ncertainty of efforts to influence public policy and agitate directly for change. While many activists were desirous of the shift to private politics, there are dangers in this shift. Corporations also prefer private politics because it is consistent with the neoliberal principle of self-regulation. Neoliberalism argues against government intervention in favor of the marketplace. It should be stake­ holders that “regulate” corporations through their actions toward the organization rather than the government (Harvey 2005). (See Box 4.1 for more information on neoliberalism.) This is consistent with the idea of the social license to operate where people accept or approve of a corporation’s right to operate. Private politics prevent governmental intervention. Compliance is at the discretion of the corporations. For instance, public commitments can be ignored and only those corporations making a public commitment are even tenuously bound to the new constraints. There are no laws and regulations that constrain all corporations in a particular industry. Continued compliance is a function of fear that stakeholders will again pun­ ish a corporation if it violates these self-imposed constraints. Private politics is an interesting arena for illustrating the way public relations can be used to generate power and to influence corporate behavior. Private politics hinges upon stakeholders being able to find a leverage point where they can successfully exert pressure on an organization. Reputation has become the primary leverage point for stakeholders. In gen­ eral, a reputation is how stakeholders perceive an organization. Reputations are evaluative and involve stakeholders comparing an orga­nization’s actions to their expectations for how an organization should behave (Rindova and Fombrun 1998; Wartick 1992). Reputations influence a range of important behaviors including investment and purchasing behavior. Organizations acknowledge that reputations are valuable, intangible assets (Alsop 2004; Davies, Chun, da Silva and Roper 2003; Dowling 2002; Fombrun and van 113

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Riel 2004). Managers spend considerable time and effort seeking to c­ ultivate a favorable reputation among their stakeholders. Threats to the reputation must be taken seriously because they can diminish an organization’s assets. When stakeholders generate negative comments about organizations in legacy media and digital media, managers worry about the reputational damage the negative comments will inflict on the organization (Conway, Ward, Lewis and Bernhardt 2007; Coombs 2002). Traditional and digital public relations efforts can be used to create the negative comments. Hence, if a reputational threat can be eliminated by modifying a problematic behav­ ior, management may change the behavior. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) (a.k.a. sustainability) is increasingly important in the corporate world. CSR is one dimension of an organiza­ tional reputation (Fombrun 2005). An organization can develop a favorable reputation in part by demonstrating its commitment to CSR. Stakeholders that share the values related to a particular CSR issue will view an organiza­ tion favorably when it supports that CSR issue (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004). For instance, a company that buys Fair Trade merchandise becomes attrac­ tive to customers that value the principles of Fair Trade. A dependence on CSR to build a corporate reputation creates a vulnerability for private poli­ tics. If stakeholders can reveal an organization is irresponsible when it is cultivating a reputation as responsible, the stakeholders’ messages can seri­ ously damage the organization’s reputation. Other stakeholders become upset when they learn an organization is hypocritical about its CSR efforts and the reputational damage spreads (Coombs 1998, 2012). Two cases are used to illustrate private politics. The first case examines the contest between Nestlé and Greenpeace over the sourcing of palm oil and illustrates public relations’ role in threatening reputations as central in private politics. The second case reviews the dispute between UK Uncut and Starbucks over tax payments.

Nestlé and Greenpeace In private politics, public relations is an important tool in efforts designed to change corporate behavior. Stakeholders, typically activist groups, seek to exercise power in order to convince or to force organizations to alter their behaviors and policies. Public relations is a mechanism stakeholders can use to generate and to wield power (Coombs and Holladay 2012b). Greenpeace’s 2010 “Ask Nestlé to give the Rainforests a Break” campaign 114

Public Relations Influences Society

illustrates the important role of public relations and social media in private politics. The “Ask Nestlé to give the Rainforests a Break” campaign sought to force Nestlé to shift from irresponsible to responsible sourcing of palm oil. The Sinar Mas Group was at the center of the problem. Greenpeace and other groups have documented the Sinar Mas Group’s involvement in rainforest destruction to produce palm oil. One of the consequences of the Sinar Mas Group’s irresponsible behavior has been the destruction of orang-utan habits. Nestlé was irresponsible because a company in its sup­ ply chain was irresponsible (Bhattacharya, Smith, and Palazzo 2010). Greenpeace launched its campaign in March by releasing a nine-page digital document online entitled “Caught Red Handed: How Nestlé’s Use of Palm Oil is having a Devastating Impact on Rainforests, the Climate and Orang-utans” (Caught 2010). Nestlé defended its practices and claimed it would have all certified, sustainable palm oil by 2015 (greenEnder 2010). Greenpeace then responded with a video on YouTube. The video was a parody of a European commercial for Nestlé’s Kit Kat candy bar. Instead of a chocolate bar, the wrapper contained bloody orang-utan dig­ its. Nestlé reacted by demanding the video be removed. Nestlé’s reaction increased attention on the video and generated online condemnations for censorship. People now wanted to see the video that was upsetting Nestlé. One viewer commented, “Thanks Nestlé – I would’ve never seen this video if you hadn’t kicked it off YouTube” (Ridings 2010). The arena for the campaign then shifted to Facebook. Greenpeace encouraged people to post to Nestlé’s Facebook page asking why the company would not commit to responsible palm oil sourcing. Many ­people posted using an altered Kit Kat logo for their image. The altered logo read “Killer” instead of “Kit Kat.” Nestlé was losing control of its Facebook page and intensified the situation by demanding people not post using the altered logo. Many people took this as another attempt at censorship. One person posted, “You NEED to change the tone in your Facebook responses. You’re committing social media suicide” (Leonard 2010). Nestlé ignored this warning and posted: “Oh please… it’s like we’re censoring everything to allow only positive comments” (Six Painful 2011). After that response, the Facebook page was completely overrun by people posting negative comments about Nestlé. The negative comments even spread to other online channels (Etlinger 2010; Ridings 2010). Nestlé eventually apologized for being rude on Facebook (Ridings 2010). In May Nestlé announced it was working with The Forest Trust (TFT) to 115

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

c­ ompletely reform its palm oil sourcing and to make their supply chain sus­ tainable (Nestlé becomes, 2010). Greenpeace thanked Nestlé for its changes on its own website and on social media sites. The “Ask Nestlé to give Rainforests a Break” campaign was declared over but Greenpeace said it would keep monitoring Nestlé for its palm oil sourcing (Sweet success 2010). Greenpeace used digital public relations efforts to expose Nestlé actions and to define them as socially irresponsible. Nestlé’s reputation was being dam­ aged by the intense volume of negative social media comments about the company. Nestlé escalated the damage by trying to limit messages about its company. Greenpeace successfully utilized YouTube, its own website, and Nestlé’s own Facebook page to threaten Nestlé’s reputation – exercise power through public relations efforts – and to force Nestlé to change how it sourced palm oil.

Starbucks and UK taxes In 2012, the UK government was cutting a variety of governmental pro­ grams including those that would be considered social welfare (e.g., healthcare, voluntary services, and education) that served disadvantaged groups. At the same time, sentiment was growing that many corporations were not paying their fair share of taxes. Eventually, the two ideas became intertwined. The austerity cuts would not be necessary if corporations paid more taxes. A Twitter hashtag #ukuncut was used to organize pro­ tests against Vodafone, one of the companies believed to be underpaying taxes. The hashtag evolved into an organization, UK Uncut, designed to force corporations to pay their taxes (UK Uncut n.d.). UK Uncut was uti­ lizing private politics as a means of leveraging certain organizations to pay more taxes. One of the companies on its list was Starbucks. UK Uncut has labeled Starbucks as a tax dodger and connected Starbucks’ failure to pay taxes to cuts in programs designed to help women. Obviously there is no empirical connection but a rhetorical connection can be made. Starbucks was identified by a Reuters investigation about companies paying little to no taxes in the UK (Morse 2012). UK Uncut planned a series of protests against Starbucks that would begin at the end of November of 2012. The protests were to be held at various Starbucks stores across the UK. The protests were in-person, direct actions. The Internet was used to coordinate the protests and provide information on how to publicize the events (Call out 2012). The UK Uncut website served 116

Public Relations Influences Society

as the hub but various social media channels, such as Twitter and Facebook, were utilized as well. UK Uncut was utilizing t­ raditional and online public relations coupled with non-traditional public relations (Coombs and Holladay 2010) to pressurize Starbucks into paying more taxes. On December 6, 2012, Starbucks announced it would be paying addi­ tional taxes in the UK. Kris Engskov, the managing director of Starbucks Coffee UK, announced: “Today, we’re taking action to pay corporation tax in the United Kingdom– above what is currently required by tax law. Since Starbucks was founded in 1971, we’ve learned it is vital to listen closely to our customers – and that acting responsibly makes good business sense” (Engskov 2012, para. 1). UK Uncut was unimpressed by the payment offered by Starbucks and promised to keep applying pressure to Starbucks. Starbucks had paid no taxes in 2011 and was agreeing to pay £20 million over the next two years (Starbucks tax row 2012). Here is part of the UK Uncut response: “Offering to pay some tax if and when it suits you doesn’t stop you being a tax dodger. This is just a PR stunt straight out of the marketing budget in a desperate attempt by Starbucks to deflect public pressure – hollow prom­ ises on press releases don’t fund women’s refuges or child benefits” (Over 40 2012). Note the derogatory use of the term “PR” in the statement. On December 16, 2012, Starbucks unknowingly provided UK Uncut with a social media-based protest. On that day, Starbucks paid to sponsor the large video screen above the ice rink at the Natural History Museum in London. As a social media promotion, Starbucks requested customers send tweets with the hashtag #spreadthecheer. The tweets were displayed on the big screen. UK Uncut urged people to use the hashtag to question Starbucks’ tax situation. The end result was a largely negative stream of tweets appearing on the screen expressing anger over Starbucks’ tax situa­ tion. To make matters worse, a computer filter designed to prevent inap­ propriate language from appearing on the screen failed resulting in some family-unfriendly language appearing on the screen. Instead of creating positive views of the company, Starbucks engaged in damage control: “We apologise to any visitors who may have been offended by inappropri­ ate messages displayed on the Twitter wall screen at the Natural History Museum’s ice rink café on Sunday. This was due to a temporary malfunc­ tion with the content filtering system” (Morse 2012). UK Uncut created yet another situation where it was using public relations in private politics to pressurize Starbucks into change. 117

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Mixing Policy, Social, and Private Changes: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and Big Pharm For analytic purposes we have separated issues management, private poli­ tics, and social marketing, but clearly the three can overlap. Policy changes can affect society, social marketing can drive policy changes, and private politics can be used to avoid the political arena. Seat belts provide an excel­ lent example. Social marketing and policies try to get us to buckle up. The topic of direct-to-consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is an excellent illustration of how issues management, private politics, and social marketing can become intertwined. The United States and New Zealand are the only two major countries to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) encompasses publicity efforts as well as advertisements (Moynihan and Cassels 2005). That is the connec­ tion between public relations and DTC. Public relations agencies such as the Chandler Chicco Agency specialize in healthcare public relations while large firms such as Edelman and Burston-Marsteller all have healthcare public relations as a specialty. Part of healthcare public ­relations is the promotion of pharmaceuticals. The success of a pharma­ ceutical launch is dependent on press coverage and “buzz” about the new medicine. Public relations firms carefully craft the media attention and buzz (Aziz 2004). In 2005 there was a major training event titled “Pharmaceutical Public Relations and Communications Summit,” where pharmaceutical companies and public relations agencies could share ideas. There is a plethora of evidence that DTC has impacted on society, in both good and bad ways (Angell 2004). On the positive side, DTC has empow­ ered patients. Patients feel better informed about health issues and feel they have more choices for treatment. DTC messages raise awareness of disease and treatments. Both patients and physicians report that DTC leads people to consult a physician and request treatment, visits that frequently do result in treatment. Both also report that DTC facilitates patient–physician com­ munication (C. Lewis 2003; Sheehan 2003). Ultimately DTC is helping peo­ ple to realize they have a problem and to seek treatment for that problem. On the negative side, DTC is helping to create new diseases, a concept known as disease mongering. Disease mongering occurs when non-medical 118

Public Relations Influences Society

problems become defined and treated as diseases (Mintzes et al. 2005). Otherwise healthy people are convinced they have a disease and must seek treatment. The severity and extent of the illness is exaggerated, partly through public-relations-generated news stories, in order to drive custom­ ers to a product. As Moynihan and Cassels observe, “With a little help from a headline-hungry media, the latest condition is routinely portrayed as widespread, severe, and above all, treatable with drugs” (2005: xiv). Public relations is a key element in efforts to create new diseases. In the language of public relations and marketing, conditions are being branded. The communication efforts might rename an old problem or identify an entirely new disorder (Moynihan and Cassels 2005). Pharmaceutical companies are taking naturally occurring events, such as balding or erectile dysfunction, and creating a dire disease (Moynihan and Cassels 2005). Or problems that could be corrected through diet or life-style changes are instead cured through chemicals (Angell 2004). Disease mongering has been divided into four strategies: ordinary pro­ cesses or ailments become medical problems (balding), mild symptoms are defined as markers of serious problems (irritable bowel syndrome), personal or social problems become medical concerns (shyness), and a naturally occurring risk becomes a disease (osteoporosis). A driving force in all four is the public relations aspect of DTC. News media coverage amplifies the advertisements to create greater awareness and fear of the “disease” (Moynihan et al. 2002). DTC becomes a variety of social marketing that fits perfectly into Witte’s EPPM model (Witte et al. 2001). The fear of the new disease becomes a motivator. People will become patients if they feel the disease affects them and is serious enough to warrant attention. If patients believe the media and advertisements, they ask for the medication because they believe the drug will work (response efficacy) and they are more able to take a medicine than make more complicated life-style changes (self-­ efficacy). Social marketing efforts purport to find problems and try to solve them. DTC, akin to the Catalytic Model, creates the disease and so the need to fight it. In reality, social marketing often creates or defines situations as problems that require attention. This is how DTC is in effect a form of social marketing. Another negative aspect of DTC is the one-sided nature of the mes­ sages. Even with FDA regulations, DTC advertising still utilizes spin. The benefits of the drug are emphasized while the harmful side effects are 119

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

downplayed. Against this, the FDA uses around only thirty people to eval­ uate around 2,000 DTC messages a year. Often a campaign ends before a complaint letter can be issued by the FDA (Angell 2004). Even the U.S. government has recognized that this is problematic (GAO, 2000). The Vioxx problem brought the issue of risk and DTC to national attention. In 2004, the drug Vioxx was recalled because of a previously undetected neg­ ative side effect on the human heart. Millions of people had taken or were taking Vioxx when it was recalled. Consumers wanted to know why the risk was not known earlier and why the FDA had let this happen. This is where public relations, via issues management, is called upon. Congress and the FDA were under public pressure to act. DTC has become an issue that various groups are trying to manage. How could pharmaceuticals be made safer? Both sides viewed DTC as a concern. Senator Bill Frist (Republican, Tennessee), a physician, issued a call in 2005 for no DTC to be done for the first two years of a new product. This time period would allow unknown risks to emerge before the drug went into wider circulation, for DTC does increase the prescription rate for a drug (C. Lewis 2003). The FDA began assessing the need for greater over­ sight and has proposed the development of the “Drug Watch” website (Guidance, 2005). The website would list any drug that the FDA is inves­ tigating for a serious side effect. As with Vioxx, a serious side effect often emerges after a drug is introduced to the market. Patients would then know when a medication was being investigated and what the side effects might be. In 2005, for instance, there were reports linking Viagra to a specific type of blindness (Reports of blindness, 2005). The argument is that patients need information when making decisions about medica­ tions. The Drug Watch site would offer another form of information to complement and perhaps counterbalance DTC messages. Only side effects that posed a significant health threat would appear on the Drug Watch site (Guidance, 2005). Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical industry was less than enthusias­ tic about the Drug Watch website proposal. The industry contends that patients would not understand the information and be scared for no real reason. These are the same arguments critics level against DTC. Patients do not fully understand the information and they could be scared into seeking a medication. Underlying the reason to support DTC and the Drug Watch website is the marketplace of ideas. Patients should be exposed to all relevant information when trying to make a decision. 120

Public Relations Influences Society

The pharmaceutical industry has responded with a time-honored issues management technique: self-regulation. In August of 2005, PhRMA, the industry association for major pharmaceutical manufacturers, announced a new fifteen point “Guiding Principles” document for DTC. Most of the principles repeat existing FDA regulations such as that DTC information should be accurate and not misleading. New measures included educa­ ting physicians prior to a DTC campaign and excluding DTC messages in  media targeted to age-inappropriate audiences (PhRMA Guiding Principles, 2005). Most of the major pharmaceutical companies publicly endorsed the plan. This self-regulation is a private political effort designed to prevent political action. Below are some sample support messages. PFIZER INC. Pfizer Inc. strongly supports PhRMA’s direct-to-consumer advertising prin­ ciples. Pfizer is especially pleased with the unambiguous commitment of these principles to better meet patients’ needs with improved communica­ tion of risks and benefits, which will enhance the industry’s ongoing efforts to raise disease awareness, educate the public about prescription medicines and treatment options, and motivate patients to talk with their physicians regarding health concerns. (Pfizer Statement, 2005) WYETH Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a division of Wyeth (NYSE:WYE), supports the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Guiding Principles for direct-to-consumer advertising, which were unveiled at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s 32nd Annual Meeting today in Dallas, Texas. Like PhRMA, Wyeth believes that direct-to-consumer advertising pro­ vides value, particularly when it provides education about healthcare con­ ditions and their treatment options and encourages dialogue between patients and their physicians,” says Bernard Poussot, President, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. (Wyeth support PhRMA, 2005)

Self-regulation is a strategy that directly links private politics and issues management. The idea is that if an industry regulates itself (private p­ olitics inspired by neoliberalism), there is no reason for the government to get involved (traditional issues management). The pharmaceutical companies are fixing the DTC problems that Frist and the FDA are so concerned about. The self-regulations must be created and promoted through public 121

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

relations. PhRMA had a media blitz with the new principles s­upported by  the comments from its prominent members. The self-regulation is an attempt to prevent change to society. Only time will tell if the issues management effort will be effective. Oddly, the issue was created by the pharmaceutical industry itself through some abuses and unintended ­consequences of DTC. The social marketing of diseases prompted the call to regulate this activity.

Conclusion In the first three chapters we focused on the microlevel of public relations with a focus on stakeholders and organizations. In this chapter we moved to a more macrolevel focus with a concentration on how public relations can be used to affect society (collections of stakeholders). Public relations operates on different levels of influence. Some tactics try to influence rela­ tionships among stakeholders while others try to influence societal laws, values, or actions. Consider an activist group attempting to alter how an organization operates. The activist group can work with the organization to instill change. Or it can use the government to force changes as in the case of the NRDC and Alar. Moreover, microlevel relationships are lever­ aged to create macrolevel changes. The web of relationships is used to build awareness of and concern for an issue or problem. Relationships between stakeholders are the raw material from which larger societal changes are constructed. Stakeholders influence others to recognize and support the issue or the need to address a social concern.

122

5 Shifting the View of Public Relations

Throughout this book there has been a distinction and a tension drawn between corporations and stakeholders. The practitioner definition of public relations as strategic communication places the corporation at the center of the public relations equation. While the general goal might be mutually beneficial relationships, public relations uses the mutually beneficial relationships as a means to achieve other organization ends such as maximizing profits. In this chapter we shift attention to the other side of the equation – society as comprised of stakeholders. What does it really mean for public relations to privilege stakeholders and society? Globalization, spurred by technological and economic developments, has provided both the opportunity and the necessity of considering the role of public relations in creating a better society. More comprehensive knowledge of events from around the world, ranging from environmen­ tal abuses to human rights concerns to political upheavals compels us to consider how public relations can aid society. The societal focus of public relations is explored through two streams of thought. First, the emerging public relations thought that emphasizes the role of stakeholders, beyond strategic communication, is examined. Second, our definition of public relations is revisited and implications for stakeholders and society considered.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Reconsidering the Positioning of Public Relations: A Societal Focus Our earlier discussion of the positioning of public relations emphasized the view that public relations is strategic communication employed by an organization. This view is consistent with Excellence Theory’s emphasis on effectiveness (Grunig 1992) and the general relationship management approach (Ledingham 2005). The strategic communication view of public relations is consistent with the marketplace of ideas as well. Various groups employ public relations to make their ideas more competitive in the mar­ ketplace. This is a rather descriptive view of public relations that does not consider its effects on society. However, there is a complimentary view of public relations that shifts the focus from strategic communication by cor­ porations to a focus on broader society and stakeholders. We can trace this conceptualization of public relations through a number of works to its more complete articulation in the Fully Functioning Society Theory. The Bled Manifesto, named for the city of Bled, Slovenia, where its development was instigated, is a statement of how public relations is con­ ceptualized in Europe. The conceptualization was created through a Delphi research method utilizing 37 experts representing 25 different countries. This statement summarizes the Bled Manifesto’s view of public relations: Seen from this standpoint public relations is not just a phenomenon to be described and defined. It is first of all a strategic process of viewing an  organization from an “outside” view. Its primary concerns are an organization’s inclusiveness and its preservation of the “license to operate”. As marketing is viewing an organization from a market view, public relations is viewing an organization from a public view (meant as “public sphere”). We, therefore, like to broaden the relational and communicative approaches to public relations with or into a public or reflective approach of which the relational and communicative approaches of public relations can be seen as parts. (van Ruler and Verĉiĉ 2002: 16)

The Bled Manifesto also notes that public relations varies by culture and that many countries in Europe do not even use the term public relations (van Ruler and Verĉiĉ 2002). The Bled Manifesto shifts attention to an external view of organiza­ tions, grounded in reflective management, and the idea of the license to operate. The license to operate exists when stakeholders accept that an 124

Shifting the View of Public Relations

organization has a right to exist and be a part of a community or society. We can think of it as a type of legitimacy an organization earns or is granted from its stakeholders. A number of other research lines in public relations have posited a similar view. Reflective management argues that external views of the organization are critical because they provide unique insights for managers (e.g., Holmstrom 2004). For examples, Molleda’s research in Latin America has shown a strong social role for public rela­ tions practitioners. Public relations in Latin America emphasizes commu­ nity interests, the well-being of people, and social transformation (Molleda 2001; Molleda and Ferguson 2004). Even Excellence Theory demonstrates a concern for the social responsibility of corporations in addition to its drive for effectiveness (Grunig and Grunig 1996). And the civil society per­ spective contends public relations can be used to build social capital and make society “a better place to live” (Taylor 2010: 9). Robert Heath (2006) draws upon the emphasis on stakeholders (soci­ ety) to develop the Fully Functioning Society Theory (FFST). FFST is a normative theory that prescribes how things should be rather than just describing how things are. FFST posits that conflicts arise in society and ideas compete with one another. Public relations can be essential to faci­ litating dialogues by creating “statement and counterstatement, whereby ideas in public can be refined, vetted, and used for enlightened choice” (Heath 2006: 109). Public relations gives voice to the competing ideas, a notion Heath (2001) advanced in his discussion of rhetorical enactment. However, there is a risk that power inequities can be manifested in public relations and used to skew the discussion. Management views should not be privileged over stakeholders. Therefore, management must be reflec­ tive and show a desire to cooperate and to avoid pursuing purely selfish interests. The role of public relations should be to facilitate participation and cooperation in order to allow the various groups to co-create mean­ ing. “Society is a complex of collectivities engaged in variously construc­ tive dialogues and power resource distribution through meeting socially constructed and shared norm-based expectations whereby individuals seek to make enlightened choice in the face of risk, uncertainty, and reward/cost ambiguity” (Heath 2006: 107). Public relations should be used to create structures that allow participative managers to advance the interests of others in some form of collaborative decision making. In a sense, FFST is the evolution of the marketplace of ideas. The mar­ ketplace of ideas simply describes how ideas compete in public space. 125

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

FFST recognizes that power can corrupt the competition of ideas. Public relations should be used to help elements of society to engage in produc­ tive efforts to address societal problems (Heath 2006). The word “should” is what makes FFST normative rather than descriptive. FFST emphasizes how public relations can be used to improve society while recognizing the exact opposite can occur when public relations serves only the interests of  the power elite. In FFST, public relations can be defined as “a force (through reflective research and best practices) to foster community as blended relationships, resource distribution, and shared meanings that advance and yield to enlightened choice” (Heath 2006: 97). The Bled Manifesto provides an important call to think beyond the descriptive defi­ nitions and conceptualizations of public relations to its effects on society. FFST captures and synthesizes the various elements in public relations that focus on stakeholders and the need to respect societal interests. FFST is a reminder that public relations has the potential to benefit society but can be abused and be harmful to society as well.

Revisiting the Definition of Public Relations FFST affords an opportunity to revisit our definition of public relations, “the management of mutually influential relationships within a web of relationships comprised of stakeholders and organizations.” The empha­ sis on influence seeks to highlight the role of power in public relations. Castells (2009) defines power as “the relational capacity that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social actor(s) in ways that favor the empowered actor’s will, interests, and val­ ues” (p. 10). In Castells’s (2009) view power relationships are naturally imbalanced but the possibility of resistance to the dominant ideology always exists. We see public relations as predicated on relationships where influence is mutual but not equal. The various actors involved in the web of relationships utilize public relations in attempts to exercise and to resist power through influence processes. Public relations can be viewed as a mechanism for the exercise and resistance of power. Castells (2009) argues that communication plays a central role in power through “the construction of meaning on the basis of the discourses through which social actors guide their action” (p. 10). In concordance with Castells, we view public relations as essentially a medium whereby 126

Shifting the View of Public Relations

discourse is employed in attempts to construct meaning. Affecting the meanings attached to actions is a method of exercising influence. All of the extended cases in Chapter 4 illustrate the use of discourse to construct meaning. A fair critique of our initial definition of public relations is that it does not include the goal of public relations. For instance, “mutually ben­ eficial relationships” is a common goal associated with contemporary defi­ nitions of public relations. The goal of mutually beneficial relationships emphasizes the strategic communication nature of public relations and is a rather general goal. The goal of public relations must be vague so that it can be adapted and applied to the many sub-specialties that comprise the field. As noted in Chapter 1, public relations is a rather amorphous prac­ tice. We envision the general goal of public relations to be the construction of meaning. Various entities utilize public relations in attempts to con­ struct meaning as a way to exercise or resist power. Another critical aspect of our definition is the web of relationships comprised of stakeholders and organizations. By noting that stakeholders and organizations all participate in the web of relationships, we hope to move away from an organization-centric view of public relations. Public relations is not viewed as something organizations “do” to stakeholders. Granted, power in the network typically favors organizations. However, that is not a reason to continually prioritize the organizational position in public relations. Stakeholders can utilize public relations to amass power and to influence organizations and other stakeholders.

Conflict: Exercise and resistance of power through public relations The various constituents often find themselves pursuing incompatible goals resulting in conflict within the web of relationships. Conflict is a natural element of society and considered an essential factor by some public relations theories (e.g., Holtzhausen 2012; Pang, Jin and Cameron 2010). The conflict creates an exigency for the exercise of influence. Constituents attempt to exercise and to resist power, through public rela­ tions, in order to shape meanings. The economic dimension of globaliza­ tion provides an excellent context for examining the stakeholders, corporations, and the power dynamics within the web of relationships. The economic dimension of globalization reflects the global incr­ ease  in  economic interrelatedness (Steger 2009). Economies are 127

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

more i­nterconnected through supply chains, investments, and the distri­ bution of goods. Transnational corporations lead the drive for globaliza­ tion as they seek to enhance markets, sales, and profits (Munshi and Kurian 2005; Stenzell 2000). Transnational corporations frequently find support from government actors. Neoliberal policies adopted by government actors attempt to remove barriers to commerce thus facilitating globaliza­ tion (Makawana 2006). The more p­ recise term for governmental support of its businesses is commercial diplomacy, a subset of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy itself is the sub-field of diplomacy with the strongest linkage to public relations (Signitzer and Coombs 1992). Public diplomacy can be defined as “attempts, either public or private, to influence public opinion abroad” (Manheim 1991: 90). The general target of public diplo­ macy is public opinion in another country: how stakeholders there feel about one’s own country, or issue or action in it. Public diplomacy seeks to influence stakeholders in order to affect the behavior of the other coun­ try, particularly its foreign policy decisions (Manheim 1994). Through issues management, public diplomacy tries to influence policy decisions, foreign aid allotment, and foreign policy choices. Policy decisions lead to the laws and regulations created by a country. Commercial diplomacy can be defined as “an activity conducted by state representatives with diplomatic status in view of business promotion between a home and a host country. It aims to encourage business devel­ opment through a series of business promotion and facilitation activities” (Naray 2008: 2). Government representatives act to influence economic decisions, such as regulations, in other countries. In other words, govern­ ment officials support business interests in their home country by trying to manage issues in host countries. The outcome should be economic gains for corporations in the home country (Kostecki and Naray 2007). One example has been the controversial efforts of the U.S. government to support Monsanto and DuPont by pressing other governments to accept genetically engineered crops (Ludwig 2011). Genetic engineering of food products is a very contentious issue. As this example illustrates, the corpo­ rations and government actors frequently work in concert to promote the corporate interests. The two both seek to define globalization as a positive and natural trend that should be supported. The primary opposition to globalization is comprised of the anti-­ globalization activists. Activists are unique stakeholders because they are composed of a variety of stakeholders such as customers, community 128

Shifting the View of Public Relations

members, or investors. Moreover, you can have “professional activists” whose job is to seek societal changes (Coombs and Holladay 2010). Greenpeace exemplifies the complexity of activists. Greenpeace has per­ manent employees (professional activists) as well as volunteers (other stakeholders) to support their causes. Thomas (2003) defines activism as “an attempt to change the behavior of another party through the applica­ tion of concerted power” (p. 129). A common characteristic of activists is that they attempt to create change through the exercise of influence (Raymond 2003; Smith and Ferguson 2001). One problem when discussing activism is the use of terminology. Are the activists non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private voluntary organizations (PVOs), or civil society organizations (CSOs)? In reality, an activist group might be all three or just one. The term non-government organization (NGO) was created in 1945 through the United Nations. An NGO is any organization that is not part of the government and can include both non-profit and for-profit entities. A PVO is a non-govern­ ment organization but must be a non-profit as well and has a general focus on humanitarian and development concerns (Willetts n.d.; What is, n.d.). A PVO is an NGO but not all NGOs are PVOs. Civil society organizations are the third sector, meaning it is neither government nor business. The underlying idea is that civil society organizations are people uniting to advance a common interest and exist in the space between the family and the state (Taylor 2010). An NGO or a PVO might be part of civil society efforts or they may not; it depends on the mission of the NGO or PVO. We can complicate matters further when we consider how activists form coalitions. When activism is global, do we have transnational advo­ cacy networks or global civil society? PVOs often enter into coalitions to increase their power (Paul 2000). The Internet has made it easier for PVOs to link up with one another. This reflects the notion of “power in numbers” discussed in Chapter 4. Interconnected PVOs are referred to as transnational advocacy networks (TANs) (Keck and Sikkink 1998). Thirteen PVOs, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Humane Society, Sierra Club, and the National Catholic Rural Life Conference formed a TAN to combat the overuse of antibiotics in producing food animals. The TAN targeted McDonald’s, the world’s largest buyer of food animals. It believed that if McDonald’s said “no” to antibiotics, the animal producers would have to listen. McDonald’s did indeed draft a “Global Policy on antibiotic use in food animals.” 129

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

The policy included a ban on the use of antibiotics in the poultry used by McDonald’s (Greider 2003). A TAN had convinced one of the largest cor­ porations in the world to change a significant business practice, again demonstrating that PVOs can influence corporations. TANs are further evidence of the global nature of activism. TANs erase national borders in the development of coalitions, selection of targets, and choice of issues. They demonstrate the public relations orientation and savvy of activists. It is through the exchange of information that TANs can form, and through these pooled power resources that they can persuade corpora­ tions or governments to change their behaviors and policies. When PVOs combine to form a more influential TAN (Keck and Sikkink 1998), the bal­ ance of power shifts to the benefit of the once-marginalized PVOs. With this increase in numbers they find that corporations are more willing to listen. Global civil society, also known as transnational civil society organiza­ tions, are networks of civil society organizations that transcend national borders and seek to influence the practices of transnational organiza­ tions (e.g., World Trade Organization) and transnational corporations. Global civil society is often considered the only counterbalance to glo­ balization (Loaner 2011). TANs and global civil society are not mutually exclusive. A TAN might be a global civil society organization as well, depending on the nature of its objectives. We will be using the term PVO as the label for activists. PVOs address a range of issues and topics. Reviewing a few of them will provide a flavor for their diversity. The Bretton Woods Project tries to influ­ ence the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This PVO collects and shares information about the activities of these powerful eco­ nomic entities. By sharing information and building coalitions, the Bretton Woods Project hopes to be a voice for greater transparency for the World Bank and IMF (About Bretton Woods, n.d.). The International Rivers Project seeks to aid local communities trying to protect their rivers and watersheds. It supports local efforts to preserve rivers and ecosystems that benefit humans and other biological communities (About international, n.d.). Oxfam is a collection of 12 organizations working in over 100 coun­ tries to develop lasting solutions to poverty and suffering. The organization believes coalitions enhance power. Oxfam champions economic and social justice (About us, n.d.). Search for Common Ground is trying to change how the world approaches conflict. The focus is to shift conflict manage­ ment from adversarial to cooperative approaches (Our mission, n.d.). 130

Shifting the View of Public Relations

PVOs are emerging as important actors in stakeholder networks, and are playing a larger role in international policy. They have been influential enough to help shape global agreements on such issues as the environ­ ment, women’s rights, arms control, and the rights of children. PVOs were instrumental in the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances Depleting the Ozone Layer of 1987 and the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997. They are often as important or more important than governments when it comes to making global policies. Even the United Nations views PVOs as an important legitimizing force in policy development (Paul 2000). Corporations recognize the power and influence of PVOs as well, and international corporations are seeing their policies shaped by them. Often a PVO is engaged to create new policies in partnership with the corpora­ tion while at other times the PVO uses its power to influence corporate policies. PVOs draw heavily on their credibility. Edelman’s Trust Barometer (2013) surveyed global opinion leaders about PVOs and corpo­ rations, including respondents from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the United States. PVOs were generally the most trusted institutions, well ahead of corporations and governments, providing a compelling force for corporations to partner with PVOs. For instance, Walmart has partnered with the Environment Defense Fund (EDF) to find ways to become more environmentally friendly. The first move by the EDF was to have Walmart reduce packing waste for toys. As Taylor notes, “Partnerships between NGOs and business organizations are a win–win situation for both par­ ties” (2005: 577). Other PVOs can leverage corporations into changing their practices. Greenpeace influenced Whirlpool to use environmentally friendly insulation while the Rainforest Action Network convinced Home Depot and Lowes not to buy products harvested from Canada’s Great Bear rainforest. Richard Edelman, president of Edelman Public Relations is another who has observed that corporations are borrowing credibility from PVOs (Iritani 2005). PVOs are built around managing mutually influential relationships. By leveraging their power, PVOs can alter the course of ships of commerce. They draw on a wide range of public relations tactics to inform, persuade, and activate stakeholders and corporations (Taylor 2005), including pro­ tests, websites, email alert systems, advocacy advertising, news releases, news conferences, and lobbying. PVOs are essentially public relations entities. These are the forms of communication that can influence corpo­ rations and governments. 131

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

Corporations, governments, and PVOs can find themselves in conflict over issues relating to globalization and corporate social responsibility. Through issues management, private politics, or a combination of the two, these stakeholders are trying to influence the policies and actions of the oth­ ers. A quick illustration of this point is the nearly 20-year banana tariff battle between the EU and Latin American banana producers. The EU imposed the tariffs to help their former colonies in Africa that grow bananas to be more competitive within the EU (Miller 2009). The tariffs made the Latin American bananas less competitive in EU markets because of the higher prices. Various governments, corporations, and PVOs were involved in efforts to maintain and to eliminate the tariffs. In December of 2009, the EU announced the tariffs would be phased out with the final reduction occur­ ring in 2017 (The EU–Latin America 2009). The United States was instru­ mental in creating the change. Dole and Chiquita, two of the top banana producers in Latin America, are U.S. companies (Miller 2009). Ending the tariff on bananas is consistent with the neoliberalism policies that foster globalization. The meaning of the tariffs was shifted from something good for developing nations growing bananas to an impediment to free trade.

Detox campaign: exercising influence through public relations The Detox campaign is an excellent way to illustrate how PVOs utilize public relations in efforts to influence behavior and policies of corpora­ tions and governments. Greenpeace created the Detox campaign to reduce the problem of toxins entering water supplies around the world due to their use in the textile industry. Textile manufacturers use toxins such as phthalates and nonylphenol ethoxyates (NPEs) when creating clothing for adults and children. One common use of the toxins is in cloth­ ing dyes. The toxins enter the water supplies in the countries where they are produced and in the countries where they are sold. When used in pro­ duction, the toxins are released into the local water supply. When people wash their clothes at home, the toxins have another opportunity to enter their water supply. The toxins present health hazards for humans includ­ ing some being carcinogenic (Hidden consequences, 2012). The toxins from textiles pose a global threat to water because they are being released in so many locations. The Greenpeace research found the toxins used in clothes made in 18 different countries and clothing sold in 27 different countries covering the continents of Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, South 132

Shifting the View of Public Relations

America, and North America (Brigden, Labunska, House, Santillo, and Johnston 2012; Toxic Threads 2012). The term “textile industry” is rather vague. People are more likely to know textiles through the brand names of fashion. Brands found to con­ tain toxins include: Zara, Gap, Levi’s, Victoria’s Secret, Tommy Hilfiger, C&A, Marks & Spencer, Only, Jack & Jones, Vero Moda, Calvin Klein, Diesel, Benetton, and Armani (Brigden et al. 2012). The brands are global in reach and are based in a number of different countries. The Detox issue is global in reach, thus, it demands a global activist effort. The goal of the Detox campaign is “zero discharge.” Zero discharge seeks the elimination of toxins by replacing them with safer alternatives. The Detox campaign works through both issues management and private politics. Greenpeace is attempting to get governments to adopt regula­ tions that reflect zero discharge for the toxins. However, the Detox cam­ paign is much more active in private politics by harnessing people power. People can pressure brands by demanding they stop the use of toxins. The early victories for Detox included convincing Puma, Adidas, Nike, H&M, Li Ning, and C&A to commit to zero discharge (Toxic Threads 2012). People pressure is the application of public relations tactics to private politics. The Detox campaign is a mix of traditional public relations, digi­ tal public relations, and non-traditional public relations. The traditional public relations tactics include sending news releases to media outlets and holding press conferences. The digital public relations uses social media, a website, and email alerts to create awareness, recruit supporters, mobilize supporters to action, and to solicit donations. For instance, Twitter and Facebook were used in private politics directed toward H&M. A Twitter petition calling on H&M to Detox was signed by over 600,000 Twitter users while people posted questions to H&M’s Facebook page asking why the company would not Detox. Non-traditional public relations employs direct actions including stag­ ing protests in front of brand stores which then become YouTube videos and protest messages. For example, there is a YouTube video of protestors dancing outside Adidas and Nike stores in many different countries to bring awareness to the issue and pressure the corporations. H&M was the target of protest messages. People targeted H&M stores in 12 separate nations for window stickers. The removable stickers said “Detox our future” and “Detox our water.” The direct actions are non-traditional pub­ lic relations because they too help to attract legacy media attention and to 133

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

raise awareness among customers at those stores (Clickers 2011). Private political action, as discussed in Chapter 4, involves harnessing a number of public relations tactics to pressure corporations by increasing aware­ ness of and support for an issue. Greenpeace has exercised influence by convincing other actors, including garment companies, that certain chem­ icals should not be used in the textile industry. The meaning of certain chemicals was changed from something that was acceptable to use to something that was toxic and to be avoided. Pressure for greater corpo­ rate social responsibility produced commitments to alter harmful impacts on the environment and people.

The UN places human rights on the corporate agenda The successes of activist groups demonstrate how public relations can be used to instigate tangible changes in corporate behaviors that pose a threat to society. While the use of public relations in the Detox campaign focused on altering a limited set of practices within the textile industry, public relations also has the potential to effect change in other areas of concern to society and contribute to the ideals associated with Heath’s Fully Functioning Society Theory. Perhaps no issue in society produces such outrage and visceral reac­ tions as human rights violations. Consider how stakeholders were appalled and demanded change when they learned about child labor in the gar­ ment industry and the utilization of diamonds to fund violence (blood diamonds). Addressing this enormously complex social concern may be the most significant challenge facing public relations. Unfortunately, human rights violations have always existed and stem from a basic lack of regard for others’ lives. Critics argue that globalization breeds human rights abuses. Organizations, including both corporations and govern­ ments, have committed human rights violations, and these violations often have become institutionalized. So the issue is indeed complex and difficult to confront. In spite of the tenure and ubiquity of human rights violations across time and around the world, the United Nations (UN), formed in 1947 and boast­ ing an international membership, is committed to pressing for respect for human rights. In addition to its concern for human rights, the UN has deve­ loped the UN Global Compact which identifies three other primary areas of concern for corporations: labor, the environment, and anti-corruption. 134

Shifting the View of Public Relations

Box 5.1  The 10 Principles of UN Global Compact The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption: Human Rights •• Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protec­ tion of internationally proclaimed human rights •• Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses Labour •• Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of associa­ tion and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining •• Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compul­ sory labour •• Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour •• Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation Environment •• Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges •• Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environ­ mental responsibility •• Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of envi­ ronmentally friendly technologies Anti-Corruption •• Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery (UN, n.d.)

The UN Global Compact’s 10 Principles (see Box 5.1) codify its concerns about corporate behavior. The UN has worked with its member nations to encourage corporations to conform to the 10 principles. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, contains 24  articles 135

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

pertaining to human rights as well. These documents demonstrate the UN’s ongoing commitment to social justice. In 2011, the UN further addressed human rights by endorsing the Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework. The Guiding Principles focus on human rights, Principle 1 of the UN Global Compact. Box  5.2 provides foundational principles for the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights section of the Guiding Principles. Here is a summary of the Guiding Principles’ view of the connection between corporation and human rights: “The responsibility to respect human rights and to thereby not cause harm is the baseline standard for all companies in all situations. Companies should exercise due diligence to become aware of, prevent and address adverse human rights impacts linked to their activities” (UN 2011). The clear message is that corporations must be cognizant of and respect­ ful of human rights. The European Commission’s (EC) 2012 endorsement of the Guiding Principles strengthens the legitimacy of those principles and the role of the UN in providing a leadership role in protecting human rights. It is possible that the development of the guiding principles may provoke con­ flict among groups that oppose the UN’s emphasis on human rights. However, the guiding principles provide a powerful rationale for coop­ eration among governments, corporations, and activists as they pursue the ideals of the principles. For example, activists who function as the watchdogs of corporate activities may be in a position to interrogate practices that violate the principles. No doubt PR should be an integral part of creating awareness of human rights issues, facilitating coalition formation, and engaging in conflict management among groups contest­ ing those issues. The availability of the technology that can be used to document and broadcast abuses of human rights, including video recording and social media, may be able to pressure corporations to reform their activities such as the use of sweatshops and forced labor. Previous success in uncov­ ering human rights abuses to force changes in operations bodes well for the potential of public relations to make a difference. The Internet pro­ vides the capacities for information sharing, generating public concern over abuses, and leveraging public outrage to shame corporations and perhaps prompt government intervention to convince corporations to modify their behavior. Public relations may be facing its most daunting 136

Shifting the View of Public Relations

Box 5.2  Foundational Principles for the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – under­ stood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Funda­mental Principles and Rights at Work. (p. 13) The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a)  Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b)  Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts. (p. 14) The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure. Nevertheless, the scale and com­ plexity of the means through which enterprises meet that responsi­ bility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of the enterprise’s adverse human rights impacts. (p. 15) In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (p. 15) (a)  A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b)  A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c)  Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contrib­ ute. (p. 16) (Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011) 137

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society On June 16, 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. The Guiding Principles clarify the meaning of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which is also a key compo­ nent of Global Compact Principle 1, which calls on business to support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights. The SRSG’s framework adopted by the UN Human Rights Council is relevant to the UN Global Compact, in particular, the SRSG’s elaboration of corporate responsibility to “respect” human rights and of “complicity,” which are some of the main concepts in UN Global Compact Principles 1 and 2. The work of the SRSG on business and human rights has shown that all human rights have the potential to be relevant to all busi­ nesses, regardless of sector or country of operation. It also empha­ sizes that respecting human rights means not causing harm to human rights. Exercising “due diligence” in identifying and managing human rights risk will help business respect human rights and avoid com­ plicity in human rights abuse. The responsibility to respect human rights and to thereby not cause harm is the baseline standard for all companies in all situa­ tions. Companies should exercise due diligence to become aware of, prevent and address adverse human rights impacts linked to their activities. The due diligence process should consider three sets of factors: the country contexts in which the companies operates; the poten­ tial and actual human rights impacts resulting from the compa­ ny’s activities; and the relationships connected to those activities. How far or how deep this process must go will depend on the circumstances. (UN, 2011)

challenge as it seeks to create networks to facilitate the development of relationships among those stakeholders, whether PVOs, governments, or other stakeholders, aid coalition formation among PVOs, and pressure for reform from within corporations that are confronted with accusations 138

Shifting the View of Public Relations

of abuses. As discussed earlier, the idea that there is power in numbers applies to the potential of PR to aid change that will benefit society. FFST posits that the various societal actors should work together, through public relations, to address human rights. Governments can for­ mulate and enforce policies designed to respect and to protect human rights. These governmental actions can be supported by corporations and PVOs that contributed to the development of the new policies. Public relations can foster the engagement necessary for governments, corporations, and PVOs to collaborate on human rights policy develop­ ment. Government agencies will employ public relations to create awareness of news policies among corporations and stakeholders. Through private politics, stakeholders (including PVOs) and corpora­ tions can engage with one another to reach an agreement on how cor­ porate behavior can support human rights more fully. Again, public relations can help to facilitate this type of engagement. Corporations will refer to their human rights actions as part of their CSR communica­ tion. Public relations is an integral part of communicating a corpora­ tion’s CSR actions to stakeholders (Coombs and Holladay 2012c). PVOs will monitor the corporate CSR communication for accuracy while some might even serve as endorsers of the corporate behavior by help­ ing to verify a corporation is protecting human rights. PVOs utilize a variety of public relations tactics for communicating their evaluations of corporate behavior to other stakeholders, including the government. Public relations has the potential to play a critical role if governments, corporations, and PVOs choose a collaborative approach to promoting and protecting human rights.

Where We Have Been We began this book by wondering if society really needs public relations. The answer is still “yes.” Public relations plays a vital role in building and maintaining the networks of stakeholders and organizations that make society possible. The connections and corresponding social capital allow these various actors depicted in Figure 3.1c to engage in mutual influence. This engagement naturally will be a mix of conflict and cooperation. 139

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is found in writings from ancient China and India. The parable involves six blind men led to meet an elephant. Each feels a different part of the great beast. The men are then asked what an elephant is. The first man touched its side and described the elephant as a wall. The second touched the tusk and believed the elephant to be a spear. The third felt the trunk and thought the elephant to be a snake. The fourth encountered the knee and believed the elephant to be a like a tree. The fifth touched the ear and thought the elephant to be a fan. The sixth man felt the tail and knew the elephant must be like a rope. The six men then argued about what an elephant is. One of the morals of this parable is the problem of looking at parts rather than the whole. We feel the parable of the blind men and the elephant fits public rela­ tions. People often see bits and pieces of public relations through massmedia filters. Some see it as a way for corporations to dupe stakeholders, some as words over substance, some as a mechanism for activists to change society for the better, and some as a way to improve the health of a nation. The truth is that public relations can be all of these. We defined public relations as the management of mutually influential relation­ ships within a web of stakeholder and organizational relationships. The outcome will not always be positive for stakeholders or even society. Corporations still have the most power and the exercise of that power can harm stakeholders. But public relations can also benefit society. The point is that public relations plays a valuable role in society. A soci­ ety cannot function effectively if the various webs of stakeholder and organizational relationships are fractured. Yes, at times the relationships are damaged, sometimes purposefully and through public relations. However, the relationships can be repaired and public relations has a vital role in those repair efforts. Public relations is not perfect; but it is an over­ statement to call it a “necessary evil” in society. Like all elements of soci­ ety, it has its good points and its bad points. Public relations is a societal tool, and tools can be misused. People have used crowbars in robberies and murders. But that does not mean crowbars are inherently evil. Public relations provides valuable societal benefits; it helps to maintain the rela­ tionships necessary for the effective functioning of society.

140

References

About Bretton Woods Project (n.d.). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http:// www.brettonwoodsproject.org/project/index.shtml. About international rivers (n.d.). Last accessed March 20, 2013 from http://www. internationalrivers.org/resources/about-international-rivers-3679. Adams, J. (2012). Zombies CPR: Zombies teach CPR in new awareness video for heart and stroke foundation Canada. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http:// www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/05/heart-and-stroke-theundea_n_1943670. html. Adhikari, R. (2012). User revolt prompts Instagram to retouch photo policies. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.technewsworld.com/­rsstory/ 76899.html. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate ­performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–25. Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House. Alsop, R. (2002, January 16). For a company, c­ haritable works are best carried out discreetly. Wall Street Journal. p. B-1. Alsop, R. (2004). The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate Reputation: Creating, Protecting, and Repairing Your Most Valuable Asset. New York: Free Press. AMA war chest (1948, December 18). Time, 52: p. 44. America’s move to raise a healthier generation of kids (n.d.). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.letsmove.gov/about. It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Angell, M. (2004). The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It. New York: Random House. Anti-Slavery Society (2005). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www. spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAantislavery.htm. Arnold, C. A. (1989). Beyond self-interest: Policy entrepreneurs and aid to the homeless. Policy Studies Journal, 18: 47–66. Arnoldy, B. (2007). Buy a red T-shirt to fight AIDS. But does it really work? Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0312/ p01s02-wmgn.html. Aziz, S. (1993). Countries must play to win. The Banker, 143: 12–13. Aziz, S. (2004, March). Betting on buzz. Pharmaceutical Executive, 24: 118–20. Baron, D. P. (2003). Private politics. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 12(1): 31–66. Beder, S. 2002. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe Publications. Bell, M. (2011). Zombie apocalypse a coup for CDC emergency team. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/­ blogpost/ post/zombie-apocalypse-a-coup-for-the-cdc-emergency-team/2011/05/20/ AFPj3l7G_blog.html. Bentele, G. (2005). Public sphere (Öffentlickeit). In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 706–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bergstrom, G. (n.d.). Social Media 101: A revolution in public relations. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/ social-media-marketing-and-public-relations.htm. Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1): 9–24. Bhattacharya, C. B., Smith, N. C., and Palazzo, G. (2010). Marketing’s ­consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain CSR issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4): 617–41. Bishop, R. L. (1988). What newspapers say about public relations. Public Relations Review, 14: 50–52. Botan. C., and Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: The state of the field. Journal of Communications, 54(4): 645–61. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–58). New York: Greenwood. Bowen, S. (2005a). Ethics of public relations. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 294–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bowen, S. (2005b). Excellence theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 306–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 142

References Bowen, S. (2005c). Symmetry. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 837—9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brigden, K., Labunska, I., House, E., Santillo, D., and Johnson, P. (2012). Hazardous chemicals branded textile products on sale in 27 places ­during 2012. Last accessed March 23, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/ international/Global/international/publications/toxics/Water%202012/ TechnicalReport-06-2012.pdf. Bronn, P. (2001). Communication managers as strategists? Can they make the grade? Journal of Communications Management, 5: 313–26. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder ­identification analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6: 21–53. Buckley, F. (2004, April 7). No smiles for Wal-Mart in California. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/07/news/fortune500/ walmart_inglewood. Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and ­genealogies of analysis. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies (pp. 642–58). London: Sage. Burrow, J. G. (1963). AMA: Voice of American Medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Call out! (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org. uk/blog/call-out 8-dec-refuge-from-the-cuts. Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(4): 268–96. Carry A. Nation: “The famous and original bar room smasher” curriculum packet (2001). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://proxychi.baremetal. com/november.org/Prohibition/docs/carrie.pdf. Caught red-handed: How Nestle’s use of palm is having a devastating impact on rainforests, the climate and orang-utans (2010). Last accessed May 5, 2012 from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/ caught-red-handed-how-nestle. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press. CDC mission (2010). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/ about/organization/mission.htm. Center for Media Literacy (2002–2011). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.medialit.org/mediaiteracy-definition-and-more. Chalmers, J. (2012). Twitter—where does news break? Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.mediamonitors.co.nz/insights/blogs/categories/blogglobal-connections/twitter-where-news-breaks. Chase, W. H. (1977). Public issue management: The new science. Public Relations Journal, 33(10): 25–6. Chase, W. H. (1980, Spring). Issues and policy. Public Relations Quarterly, 25: 5–6. 143

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Christensen, L., Thyssen, O., and Morsing, M. (2011). The polyphony of c­ orporate social responsibility: Deconstructing accountability and transparency. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, August 12–16, Montreal, Canada. Ciarallo, J. (2010). Kim Kardashian producing PR documentary “The Spindustry.” Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/ kim-kardashian-producing-pr-documentary-the-spindustry_b3050. Clickers and stickers make H&M detox (2011). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/Clickersand-Stickers -Make-HM-Detox. Conley, J. G., Jr. (2006). Environmentalism contained: A history of corporate responses to the new environmentalism (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Princeton University. Conway, T., Ward, M., Lewis, G. and Bernhardt, A. (2007). Internet crisis p­ otential: The importance of a strategic approach to marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(3): 213–28. Coombs, W. T. (1993). Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist paradigm. Public Relations Review, 19: 111–20. Coombs, W. T. (1998). The Internet as potential equalizer: New leverage for con­ fronting social irresponsibility. Public Relations Review, 24: 289–304. Coombs, W. T. (2002). Assessing online issue threats: Issue contagions and their effect on issue prioritization. Journal of Public Affairs, 2: 215–29. Coombs, W. T. (2010). Sustainability: a new and complex “challenge” for crisis managers. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(1): 4–16. Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2010). PR Strategy and Application: Managing Influence. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2011). Self-regulatory discourse: Corrective or quiescence? Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3): 494–510. Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012a). Fringe public relations: How activism moves critical PR toward the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38(5): 880–87. Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012b). Internet contagion theory 2.0: How Internet communication channels empower stakeholders. In S. Duhé (ed.), New Media and Public Relations (2nd edn.) (pp. 21–30). New York: Peter Lang. Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012c). Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: A Communication Approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Cooper, R. (1997, Summer). A historical look at the PepsiCo/Burma boycott. The Boycott Quarterly, 28: 13–15. CPRS public relations definition (2009). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.cprs.ca/aboutus/mission.aspx. Crable, R. E. and Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. Public Relations Review, 11: 3–16. 144

References Crusades (2005). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.wctu.com/­ crusades.html. Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The Unseen Power: Public Relations. A History. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S. M. (1995). Public Relations History: From the 17th to the 20th Century. The Antecedents. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective Public Relations, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., and Roper, S. (2003). Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness. New York: Routledge. Deibel, T. and Roberts, W. (1976). Culture and Information: Two Foreign Policy Functions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dezenhall, E. (2004). Who we are manifesto. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.dezenhall.com/about.htm. Dezenhall, E. (2005). Stopping the attackers in today’s assault culture. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/documents/nichols-­dezenhall.pdf. Diermeier, D. (2007). Private politics: A research agenda. The Political Economist, 14, 1–2. Donkin, R. (1997, September 8). A moral stance: Companies can no longer shrug off the ethical aspects of their business. Financial Times, p. 16. Dowling, G. (2002). Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image, and Performance. New York: Oxford University Press. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The “issue-attention cycle.” The Public Interest, 29: 39–50. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2005). Theory and practice in health communication ­campaigns: A critical interrogation. Health Communication, 18(2): 103–122. Echoes from the triangle fire, The Ladies’ Garment Worker. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/social_studies/ tsw/tsw_echoes.pdf. Ecuador rejects EU banana tariff proposal (2005, September 13). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/239287/ ecuador_rejects_eu_banana_tariff_proposal. Edelman, R. (2012). Our time to lead. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.scribd.com/doc/113833669/Our-Time-to-Lead-by-Richard-Edelman. Elliott, S. (2011). Redefining public relations in the age of social media. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/business/media/ redefining-public-relations-in-the-age-of-social-media.html?_r=2&ref=business. Ellis, B. (2010). New Gap logo ignites firestorm. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/companies/gap_logo/index.htm. Engskov, K. (2012). An open letter from Kris Engskov. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://starbucks.co.uk/blog/an-open-letter-from-kris-engskov/1249. 145

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Erika (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.eonline.com/on/ shows/spin_crowd/cast_bios.html. Etlinger, S. (2010). Brand monitoring: What we can learn from the ­Nestle-Facebook crisis. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://horngroup.blogs.com/horn_ group_weblog/2010/03/brand-monitoring-what-we-can-learn-from-thenestlefacebook-crisis.html. Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A Social History of Spin. New York: Basic Books. Exploring the links between international business and poverty reduction (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/ issues/livelihoods/unilever.htm. Fisher, W. R. (1970). A motive view of communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56: 131–39. Fitzpatrick, K. R. and Palenchar, M. J. (2006). Disclosing special interests: Constitutional restrictions on front groups. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3): 203–24. Fombrun, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking – Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving Standard. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 7–12. Fombrun, C. J. and van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. New York: Prentice-Hall/Financial Times. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, MA: Pittman. Fulton, S. M. III. (2009). FTC: Bloggers must disclose material connections to endorsed products. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.betanews. com/article/FTC-Bloggers-must-disclose-material-connections-to-endorsedproducts/1254761286. Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. GAO (2000). FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising had limits. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03177. pdf#search=‘gao%20DTC%202000’. General Information (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. afa.net. Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management Code of Ethics Code of Ethics (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. globalalliancepr.org/website/page/code-ethics. Going global: Managers’ experiences working with worldwide stakeholders (2005). Center for Corporate Citizenship. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.bcccc.net/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=1082& grandparentID = 490&parentID = 569. 146

References Government zombie promos are spread (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/07/government-­zombiepromos-are-spreading. Gower, K. K. (2006). Truth and transparency. In K. Fitzpatrick and C . Bronstein (eds.), Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy (pp. 89–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. greenEnder (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.mizozo. com/world/03/2010/23/greenpeace-nestl-s-powerbar-kitkat-crunch-­ crisp-an....html. Grefe, E. A. and Linsky, M. (1995). The New Corporate Activism: Harnessing the Power of Grassroots Tactics for Your Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greider, W. (2003, July 31). Victory at McDonald’s. The Nation, 277: 8–12. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grunig, J. E. and Grunig, L. A. (1996). Implications of symmetry for a theory of ethics and social responsibility in public relations. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Chicago. Grunig, J. E. and Hon, L. C. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Last acccessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.institute­ forpr.org/topics/measuring-relationships. Grunig, J. E. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, J. E. and Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 117–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. and White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guidance: FDA’s “drug watch” for emerging drug safety information (2005, May). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ 98fr/05d-0062-gdl0001.pdf. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ Guiding PrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. Hall, J. (2005, July 3). Dealing with terror: British companies have been chastised by Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, for not doing enough to ensure that they are not ­g iving financial succour to Zimbabwe’s repressive regime. Sunday Telegraph, p. 3. 147

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Hall, M. (2011). Versace bans the “killer jeans” sandbasting [sic] technique from their fashion line. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.thereces­ sionista.com/2011/07/versace-bans-killer-jeans-sandbasting.html. Hands, J. (2011). @ is for Activism. New York: Pluto Press. Hanson, D. (2009). Temperance movement groups and leaders in the U.S. Last  accessed March 15, 2012 http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ controversies/1124913901.html. Harris, R. (1969). A Sacred Trust. Baltimore: Penguin. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Hazleton, V. and Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital: Reconceptualizing the bottom line. Corporate Communication, 5(2): 81–86. Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R. L. (1998). New communication technologies: An issues management point of view. Public Relations Review, 24: 273–88. Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R. L. (2005). Issues management. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 460–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into the fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Review, 18(2): 93–114. Heath, R. L. and Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today’s Public Relations: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R. L. and Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues Management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Henderson, J. K. (1998). Negative connotations in the use of the term “public relations” in the print media. Public Relations Review, 22: 45–54. Hidden consequences: The cost of industrial water pollution on people, planet profit. Last accessed January 18, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/inter­ national/en/campaigns/toxics/water/hidden-consequences/#1. Hoffman, A. J. and Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12: 414–34. Holiday, R. (2012). Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. New York: Portfolio. Holiday, R. (n.d.). You’ve seen it all before. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://trustmeimlying.com. Holmstrom, S. (2004). The reflective paradigm of public relations. In B. van Ruler and D. Verĉiĉ (eds.), Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe (pp. 121–33). Berlin: Monton de Gruyter. 148

References Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12: 93–114. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public Relations as Activism: Postmodern Approaches to Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. Holtzhausen, D. R. and Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The ­postmodern public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14: 57–84. How does the INSM work (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.insm.de/en/The-INSM/the-insm.html. How (RED) works. (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.­ joinred.com/aboutred/how-red-works. “I will be heard”: Abolitionism in America. (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism. International Association of Business Communicators Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.iabc.com/about/code.htm. Iritani, E. (2005, February 20). From the street to the inner sanctum. Los Angeles Times, p. C-1. Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization-stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and transparency. Journal of Management Development, 25(10): 942–55. Jaques, T. (2006). Activist “rules” and the convergence with issues management. Journal of Communication Management, 10: 407–20. Jaslow, R. (2012). Let’s move! campaign turns 2: Is it working? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/237785/81/LetsMove-campaign-turns-2-Is-it-working. Jones, B. L. and Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review, 7: 3–23. Karp, G. (2010), Aggrieved consumers are leveraging the power of the Internet and social media to fight back against corporate America. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-15/business/ ct-biz-0616-kraft-mold-20100615_1_capri-sun-cloth-diapers- kraft-foods. Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Keenan, K. L. (1996, July). Coverage of public relations on network television news: An exploratory census of content. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, Anaheim, CA. Key, V. O., Jr. (1964). Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2): 100–27. 149

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Kostecki, M., and Naray, O. (2007). Commercial diplomacy and international business. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.clingendael.nl/­ publications/2007/20070400_cdsp_diplomacy_kostecki_naray.pdf. Kunczik, M. (1990). Images of Nations and International Public Relations. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Kunczik, M. (1994, June). Public diplomacy and public relations advertisements of ­foreign countries in Germany: Results of a content analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sydney, Australia. Kurtz, H. (2005). Last accessed March 20, 2013 from http://www.wa­shingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html. Lardinois, F. (2010). The short lifespan of a tweet: Retweets only happen within the first hour. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://readwrite. com/2010/09/29/the_short_lifespan_of_a_tweet_retweets_only_happen. Ledingham, J. A. (2005). Relationship management theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 740–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Legaspi, A. (2012). AFP commits itself to protecting human rights; progressives skeptical. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/ news/story/284983/news/nation/afp-commits-itself-to-protecting-human-rightsprogressives-skeptical. Leitch, S. and Neilson, D. (2001). Bring publics into public relations: New ­theoretical frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 127–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lennick, D. and Kiel, F. (2005). Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Leonard, A. (2012) Nestle’s brave Facebook flop. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.salon.com/news/social_media/index.html?story=/tech/ htww/2010/03/19/nestle_s_brave_facebook_flop. L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L’Etang and M. Pieczka (eds.), Critical Perspectives in Public Relations (pp. 14–34). London: International Thomson Business Press. Lewis, C. (2003). The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising. Last accessed August 15, 2005 from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-99148085.html. Lewis, S. (2003, January). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.mori.com/publications/sl/reputation-andcsr.pdf. Loaner, K. (2011). The importance of the global civic society, hence its necessary sabotaging. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://globalsociology.com/ category/global-civil-society. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22: 28–51. 150

References Lucas, G. (2004, April 4). A Wal-mart in the neighborhood? Inglewood goes to polls to decide. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A-1. Ludwig, M. (2011). New WikiLeaks cables show US diplomats promote geneti­ cally engineered crops worldwide. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// truth-out.org/news/item/2935:new-wikileaks-cables-show-us-diplomatspromote-genetically-engineered-crops-worldwide. Makawana, R. (2006). Neoliberalism and economic globalization. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-­andeconomic-globalization.html. Manheim, J. B. (1987). A model of agenda dynamics. In M. L. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication Yearbook, 10: 499–516. Manheim, J. B. (1991). All the People, All the Time: Strategic Public Communication and American Politics. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Manheim, J. B. (1994). Strategic Public Diplomacy and America Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Manheim, J. B. (2001). The Death of a Thousand Cuts: Corporate Campaigns and the Attacks on the Corporation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marlowe, L. (1998, December 10). Amnesty and Body Shop put their mark on human rights. The Irish Times, p. 12. McGinn, D. (2005, November 14). Wal-Mart hits the wall. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/11/13/wal-marthits-the-wall.html. McGuire, W. J. (1981). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice and W. J. Paisley (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 41–70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Meijer, M. M. (2004). Does Success Breed Success? Effects of News and Advertising on Corporate Reputation. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers. Melbourne mandate (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://­ melbournemandate.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/melbourne-mandate-­textconsultation-draft-final.pdf. Mendelson, B. J. (2012). Social Media is Bullshit. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Miller, D., and Dinan, W. (2008). A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Miller, J. W. (2009). EU ends 16-year banana trade battle. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126089161812692163.html. Mintzes, B., Barer, M. L., Kravitz, R. L., Kazanjian, A., Bassett, K., Lexchin, J., Evans, R. G., Pan, R., and Marion, S. A. (2005, February 2). Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients’ requests on prescribing: Two site cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 324: 278–79. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of ­stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853–86. 151

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Morse, F. (2012). Starbucks PR fail at Natural History Museum after #SpreadTheCheer tweets hijacked. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/starbucks-pr-rage-natural-historymuseum_n_2314892.html?ncid=GEP. Moynihan, R. and Cassels, A. (2005). Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning Us All into Patients. New York: National Books. Molleda, J. C. (2001). International paradigms: the Latin American school of pub­ lic relations. Journalism Studies, 2(4): 513–30. Molleda, J. C. and Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Public relations roles in Brazil: Hierarchy eclipses gender differences. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(4): 327–51. Morse, F. (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost. co.uk/2012/12/17/starbucks-pr-rage-natural-history-museum_n_2314892. html?ncid=GEP. Moynihan, R., Heath, I., and Henry, D. (2002, April 13). Selling sickness: The  ­pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal, 324: 886–90. Muckraking (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.spartacus. schoolnet.co.uk/Jmuckraking.htm. Mueller, U. (2007). Manufacturing a neoliberal climate: Recent reform initiatives in Germany. In W. Dinan and D. Miller (eds.), Thinker Faker Spinner Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy (pp. 155–71). Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology and Domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Munshi, D., and Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4): 513–20. Naray, O. (2008). Commercial Diplomacy: a conceptual overview. Conference paper for the 7th World Conference of TPOs – The Hague, The Netherlands. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/ intracenorg/Content/Trade_Support_Institutions/TPO_Network/Content/ Conferences/2008/NarayConferencepaper.pdf. Negin, E. (1996, September/October). The alar “scare” was real; and so is the “veggie hate” movement. Columbia Journalism Review, 35: 13–15. Nestlé becomes TFT’s newest member. (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 http://www.tft-forests.org/news/item/?n=10303. Neuman, J. (1996). Lights, Camera, War: Is Media Technology Driving International Politics? New York: St. Martin’s Press. Newsom, D., Turk, J. V., and Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 152

References Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187–206. Oglivie, J. P. (2011). Let’s move: Can it make kids healthier? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/20/health/la-helets-move-assess-20110320. Our mission (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.sfcg.org/ sfcg/sfcg_mission.html. Over 40 UK Uncut actions across UK successfully target Starbucks over tax ­avoidance and impact of government cuts on women (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/press-release-over-40uk-uncut-actions-across-uk-successfully-target-starbucks-over-tax-avoidanceand-impact-of-government-cuts-on-women. Overview. (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ketchumper­ spectives.com/archives/2010_i4/Barcelona_Principles_Public_Relations_ Measurement/Overview. Paletz, D. L. and Entman, R. M. (1981). Media Power Politics. New York: Free Press. Pang, A., Jin, Y., and Cameron, G. T. (2010). Contingency theory conflict manage­ ment: Directions for the practice of crisis communication from a decade of theory development, discovery, and dialogue. In W. T. Coombs and S. J. Holladay (eds.), Handbook of Crisis Communication (pp. 527–49). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Partners (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.joinred.com. Paul, J. A. (2000, June). NGOs and global policy-making. Last accessed March 13, 2013 http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/177/31611.html. Pell, E. (1990, March/April). No sacred cows. Common Cause Magazine, 10: 6–7. People & Events: 1857–1944 (2000). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_tarbell.html. Pfizer Statement on PhRMA Principles (2005, August 2). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pfizer+Statement+On+PhRMA+ Principles.-a0134738554. PhRMA Guiding Principles: Direct to consumer advertisements about pres­ crip­tion medicines (2005, August). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/631/phrmaguidingprinciplesdec08 final.pdf. Pollution: Keep America beautiful – Iron Eyes Cody (1961–1983) (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 http://www.adcouncil.org/Our-Work/The-Classics/ Pollution-Keep-America-Beautiful-Iron-Eyes-Cody. Potter, W. (2010). Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans. New York: Bloomsbury. 153

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society PR Watch (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/ prwissues. PR Watch (2013). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/ prwissues. Practice areas (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.smithand­ company.com/the-practice. Presnal, K. (2011). Will H&M be able to stop Versace’s killer jeans? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.skimbacolifestyle.com/2011/07/hm-stopversaces-killer-jeans.html. PRSA Member Code of Ethics (2000). New York: Public Relations Society of America. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rakow, L. F. (1989). Information and power: Toward a critical theory of informa­ tion campaigns. In C. T. Salmon (ed.), Information Campaigns: Balancing Social Values and Social Change (pp. 164–84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Raucher, A. R. (1968). Public Relations and Business: 1900–1929. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rawlins, B. L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 210–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raymond, D. (2003). Activism: Behind the banners. In S. John and S. Thomson (eds.), New Activism and the Corporate Response (pp. 207–25). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Reports of blindness in men using Viagra, Cialis (2005, May 27). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004291/print/1/ displaymode/1098. Results (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.joinred.com/ results. Richey, L. A. and Ponte, S. (2011). Product RED, brand aid and celebrity driven development. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://triplecrisis.com/ product-red-brand-aid-and-celebrity-driven-development. Ridings, M. (2010). Take a look at what Nestle thinks a brand manager does. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.techguerilla.com/nestle-facebookgreenpeace-timeline-in-proces. Ries, A. and Reis, L. (2002). The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR. New York: HarperCollins. Rindova, V. and Fombrun, C. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 691–710. Roddick, A. (1996, October 31). Body Shop challenges Shell to confront “new business reality.” Financial Times, p. 14. 154

References Rosenman, M. (2007). The patina of philanthropy. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/the_patina_of_philanthropy. Ryan, C. (1991). Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grass Roots Organizing. Boston: South End Press. Saxton, G. D. and Benson, M. A. (2005). Social capital and the growth of the nonprofit sector. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1): 16–35. Schultz, D. E. (2003). Evolving marketing and marketing communication into the twenty-first century. In D. Iacobucci and B. Calder (eds.), Kellogg on Integrated Marketing (pp. vii–xxi). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Scotts, D. M. (2011). The New Rules of Marketing & PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Scrimger, J. and Richards, T. (2003). Public relations battles and wars: Journalistic clichés and the potential for conflict resolution. Public Relations Review, 29: 485–92. Sebastian, M. (2012). Report: PR pros should not edit their client’s Wikipedia entries. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prdaily.com/Main/ Articles/Report_PR_pros_should_not_edit_their_clients_Wikip_12026. aspx#. Sheehan, K. B. (2003). Balancing acts: An analysis of Food and Drug Administration letters about direct-to-consumer advertising violations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22: 159–69. Signitzer, B. H. and Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2): 137–47. Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 351–61. Six painful social media screw-ups (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/technology/1104/gallery.social_ media_controversies/2.html. Smith, M. E. and Ferguson, D. P. (2001). Activism. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 291–300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sneed, T. (2012). How a PR maven turned Scandal into a television success. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/ 2012/09/27/how-a-pr-maven-turned-scandal-into-a-television-success. Sofer, S. (1991). Debate revisited: Practice over theory. In W. C. Olsen (ed.), The Theory and Practice of International Relations, 8th edn. (pp. 65–77). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. SourceWatch (2013). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.source­ watch.org/index.php/SourceWatch. Spicer, C. H. (1993). Images of public relations in print media. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5: 47–61. 155

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Starck, K. and Kruckeberg, D. (2003). Ethical obligations of public relations in an era of globalisation. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1): 29–40. Starbucks tax row: £10m climbdown (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://news.sky.com/story/1021646/starbucks-tax-row-10m-climbdown. Starr, P. (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books. Stauber, J. and Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Steger, M.B. (2009). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford. Stenzel, P.L. (2000). Globalization. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http:// www.enotes.com/globalization-reference/globalization. Stockholm Accords. (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. stockholmaccords.org/accords-text. Stone, B. and Richtel, M. (2007). The hand that controls the sock puppet could get slapped. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.nytimes. com/2007/07/16/technology/16blog.html?ex=1342238400&en=9a3424961f 9d2163&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0. Sweet success for Kit Kat campaign: You asked, Nestlé has answered (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/ news/features/Sweet-success-for-Kit-Kat-campaign. Tapscott, D., and Ticoll, D. (2003). The Naked Corporation. New York: Free Press. Taylor, M. (2005). Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 576–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, M. (2010). Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Sage Handbook of Public Relations, 2nd edn. (pp. 5–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The EU–Latin America bananas agreement: Questions and answers (2009). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ MEMO-09-557_en.htm. Thomas, C. (2003). Cyberactivism and the corporations: New strategies for new media. In S. John and S. Thomson (eds.), New Activism and the Corporate Response (pp. 115–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Top 10 party tips (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.eonline. com/on/shows/spin_crowd/party_tips.html. Toxic threads: Under wraps. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/toxics/ Water%202012/ToxicThreads03.pdf. Treadwell, D. and Treadwell, J. B. (2005). Public Relations Writing: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tsetsura, K. and Kruckeberg, D. (2013). Transparency, Public Relations and the Mass Media: Combating Media Bribery Worldwide. New York: Routledge. 156

References UK Uncut (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org. uk/about/ukuncut. Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., and Sellnow, T. L. (2005). Stakeholder theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 808–11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. UN Framework (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. unglobalcompact.org/Issues/human_rights/The_UN_SRSG_and_the_UN_ Global_Compact.html. UN Global Compact 10 Principles (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index. html. Upton Sinclair (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.spartacus. schoolnet.co.uk/Jupton.htm. Van Grove, J. (2009). Sponsored Tweets launches: The end of Twitter as we know it? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://mashable.com/2009/08/03/ izea-sponsored-tweets. van Riel, C. B. M. (2000). Corporate communication orchestrated by a sustaina­ ble story. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, and M. H. Larsen (eds.), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand (pp. 157–81). New York: Oxford University Press. van Ruler, B. and Verĉiĉ, D. (2002). The Bled manifesto on public relations. Last  accessed March 13, 2013 from http://prbooks.pbworks.com/f/Bled+ Manifesto.pdf. Vasquez, G. M. and Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on “the public.” In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 139–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wartick, S. L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31: 33–42. Watts, D. J. and Peretti, J. (2007, May). Viral marketing for the real world. Harvard Business Review. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.fastcompany. com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point-toast.html?page=0%2C5. Weelwright, J. (2001, August 19). Interview: Anita Roddick. Scotland on Sunday, p. 8. Who supports the INSM? (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. insm.de/en/TheINSM/the-insm.html. Wilcox, D., Ault, P. H., Agee, W. K., and Cameron, G. T. (2000). Essentials of Public Relations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Willetts. P. (n.d.). What is a non-governmental organization? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/peter-willets.html. Witte, K., Meyer, G., and Martell, D. (2001). Effective Health Risk Messages: A Stepby-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 157

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society Wyeth support PhRMA guiding principles for direct-to-consumer advertising (2005, August 2). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.newsrx.com/news letters/Medicine-and-Law-Weekly/2005-09-16/ 09122005333527MLW.html. Zombie preparedness (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www. cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm.

158

Index

abolitionists  72–73, 76 activists, activism  129–132 antagonistic view  63–64 challenges 71–72 Internet activism  82–87 Alar 95–97 Alinsky, Saul  79–81 American Family Association (AFA) 83–85 American Medical Association (AMA) 97–99 apple industry  96 Armed Forces of the Philippines  6 Armstrong, Lance  5 banana tariff   132 Chiquita 132 Dole 132 Barcelona Principles  24 Baxter, Leone  61–62 Bernays, Edward  61–62 Bled Manifesto  124 boundary spanner  45–49, 56–57 boycott 84 Bretton Woods Project  130 bribery 15–16 Burger King  64

Burson-Marsteller 10 Byoir, Carl  61–62 Canada’s Great Bear rainforest  131 Catalytic Model  93–94, 119 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 106–107 Center for Media and Democracy  12 Chase–Jones Model  91–92 Chief Iron Eyes Cody, crying Indian  104 civil society, civil society organizations  129 Clean Clothes Campaign  86 Coalition for a Better Inglewood  99 co-creation perspective  125 Command PR  6 commercial diplomacy  128 conflict between organization and stakeholders 127 corporate-centric view  60–63, 66–67, 124 corporate social responsibility (CSR)  40–41, 49, 114–117, 125, 139 Cutlip, Scott  61 daminozide see Alar Declaration of Principles  49 deontology 39–40 Detox campaign  132–134

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition. W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Index Dinan, William  18 direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) 118–122 criticisms 101 response to critics  101–102 disease mongering  118–119

general hospitals  100 genetic engineering  128 DuPont 128 Monsanto 128 Gilligan, Carol  40 Global Fund  108 global civil society  130 globalization 127–8 Greenpeace  114–116, 132–134

Edelman’s Trust Barometer  131 Enron 4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 95–99 ethic of care  40–41 ethics  36–37, 38–49, 58–59 Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) 42 Global Alliance  42–43, 45 influence  46, 48 IPRA 41 International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)  41 listening 47 perspectives 39–42 professional codes  41–45 Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) 43–45 resides in individual  58–59 tensions for practitioners  49–50 European Commission  136 Ewan, Stuart  4 Excellence Theory  65, 124 extended parallel process model (EPPM)  102–103, 119 efficacy  102, 103 fear appeal  102 threat 102–103

H&M 133 HealthSouth 4 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act  106 Heath, Robert  94, 125–126 Hill, John  61–62 Hill and Knowlton  10 History of Standard Oil, The 78 HIV/AIDS 109 Holiday, Ryan  22 Huffington Post  22

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)  14 Fenton Communications  96 First Reform Era  72–76 food disparagement laws (food libel laws)  96 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 119–120 Ford Motor Company  83–85 Free-standing Ambulatory Surgery Center (FASC) 100–101 front groups  14 Fully Functioning Society Theory (FFST)  124–126, 139

image 13 see also reputation influence, see power interdependence 40 International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)  41 Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM) 111–112 Instagram 6 Systrom, Keven  6 Internet Contagion Theory (ICT) 87 issues management  81–82, 90–101 communication 94 definitions 91 power 94–95 process definition  91 Jungle, The 77 Keep America Beautiful  103–105 Kodak 80 labor unions  87–89 Labour Behind the Label  86 Lee, Ivy  61–62, 63–64, 78 legacy media  22, 133

160

Index Let’s Move  105–106 Ludlow Massacre  87–88 marketplace of ideas  28–29 McClure’s 78 Meat Inspection Act  77 Miller, David  18 Mothers and Others for Pesticides Limits 96 muckraking 76–77 mutually influential relationships  35, 58, 127 mutually beneficial relationships  35, 127 Naked Corporation, The  15 Nation, Carry A.  75 national health insurance  97–99 National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) 95–96 neoliberalism  105, 110–111, 128 Nestlé 114–116 News Corporation  5 Newsom, Earl  61–62 non-government organizations (NGOs) 129 see also private voluntary organizations Obama, Michelle  105 Obama, President  97 one-way communication  39, 48 Olympus 5 Page, Arthur  60–61 palm oil  114–116 parable of the blind men and the elephant 140 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  64 Persian Gulf War  10 Pfizer 121 pharmaceutical companies  118–121 PhRMA 121–122 guiding principles  121 Pilgrim’s Progress, The 77 Policy making  71–72, 81–82, 90–91 inside champion  72 postmodernism 55–58

Potter, Wendell  17–18 power  11, 15, 23–27, 30, 32, 38, 40–42, 44, 47, 53–56, 58, 65, 68, 73, 103, 122, 125–126 power over  53–54 PR! A Social History of Spin 8 private politics  112–122 defined 112 leverage points  113 private voluntary organizations (PVOs)  129–132, 139 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) 88 Progressive Era  76 Prohibition 73 propaganda 16 Goebbels, Joseph  16 pseudoevent 74 public agenda  60 public communication  28 public diplomacy  128 public interest  38–40 public relations activist role  56–57 as confrontations  7 conscience of organization  37 critics  4–5, 8–13 critiques 13–20 definition  34–35, 126–127, 140 media portrayals  19 media use of term  6–7 popular press attacks  8–13 popular press books  20–23 postmodern perspective  55–58 profession or practice  22–26 PRSA definition  24 stakeholder view  124–125 strategic focus  24 see also spin public relations literacy  29–31 Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)  7, 19, 21–23, 33–35 public service announcement (PSA) 103–104 publicity 6 Pure Food and Drug Act  77

161

Index Railroad Labor Act  88 Rainforest Action Network  131 Rampton, Sheldon  9–12 RED Campaign  108–109 reflective management  125 reputation, 113–114, 116 see also image robber barons  77 Rockefeller, J. D.  61–62, 64, 78 Roosevelt, Theodore  76–77 Ruder Finn Group  18 Rules for Radicals 80–81 Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System  100–101 “Scandal” (television show)  19 Scotts, David Meerman  21 Second Reform Era  76–79 self-regulation 121–122 Sinclair, Upton  77, 78 Smith, Judy  19 social capital  35 social marketing  101–110 social media  14, 21–23, 126–128 activism 85–86 blogs  16, 21–23 Facebook  14, 27, 86, 105, 115, 133 monitoring 27 Twitter  14, 27, 105, 116–117, 135 social networks  25–26 social reform  62, 68 socialized medicine  88 sockpuppeting 14 spin  4, 23 “Spin Crowd, The” (television show) 20 stakeholders  24–25, 38, 40–43, 47, 54–60, 70, 103, 121 challenges 69 defined  31, 32 definitive 70 expectant 70–71 latent 70 legitimacy 69–70 power 69–70 salience 69–71 urgency 69–70 Standard Oil  78

Starbucks 116–117 Stauber, John  9–12 Stockholm Accords  24 Stowe, Harriet Beecher  73 Tappan brothers  72 Tarbell, Ida  78 teleological approach  39 temperance 73–76 Toxic Sludge is Good for You! 9–12 transnational advocacy networks (TANs) 129–130 transparency  14, 15–16 Triangle Waist Companies  88 Truman, Harry  97 Truth, Sojourner  73 two-way asymmetrical model  46 two-way communication  39, 48, 58 two-way symmetrical model  46–47 Tyco 4 UK Uncut  116–117 UN Global Compact  134–135 Uncle Tom’s Cabin 73 Uniroyal 95–96 United Nations  6, 134–138 human rights  6, 135–138 Unseen Power, The 61 Versace 85–86 Vioxx 120 Waist factory fire  74 Walden Two 35 Walmart 99–100 web of relationships  34, 127 Weber Shandwick Worldwide  18 Whitaker, Clem  61–62 Whitaker & Baxter  98 Williams, Armstrong  56 Witte, Kim  102–103 Women’s Christian Temperance Union 74 Wyeth 121 YouTube  105, 115–116, 133 Zombie Apocalypse  106–108

162